Distinctive  Doctrines  and  Usages 


OF  TEfE 


Evangelical  Letfieran  Church 


BX 

8065 

.D5 

1914 

1 

The 

distinctive  doctrines 

an 

d  usa 

ges 

of  the 

general 

Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/distinctivedoctr1914phil 


The  Distinctive  Doctrines 
and  Usages 

JAN  2  9  1915 


h 

OF  THE  GENERAL  BODIES  OF  TH 


EVANGELICAL  LUTHERAN 
CHURCH 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 


FOURTH  EDITION,  REVISED  AND  ENLARGED 


PHILADELPHIA,  PA.: 

THE  LUTHERAN   PUBLICATION  SOCIETY 


Copyright,  1914,  by 
THE  LUTHERAN  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY 


INTRODUCTION 


THE  former  volume  of  ^'Distinctive  Doctrines 
AND  Usages''  was  published  more  than  twenty 
years  ago.  It  was  favorably  received  by  the  Luth- 
eran Church  in  America,  and  passed  through  three 
editions.  Its  purpose  was  to  give  in  brief  compass 
the  history,  doctrinal  teachings,  and  valuable  statis- 
tics of  a  number  of  the  largest  Lutheran  Bodies  in 
this  country.  Some  of  its  material  has  long  since 
been  out  of  date,  and,  therefore,  misleading  to 
present  readers. 

This  new  volume  is  in  reality  more  than  an  edi- 
tion of  the  old  one.  Only  one  article  stands  as  in  the 
former  editions,  while  four  are  thoroughly  revised, 
one  entirely  rewritten,  and  four  new  ones  added. 
The  present  work  more  than  fills  to-day  the  place 
the  old  one  filled  when  it  was  given  to  the  Church. 
It  is  not  a  book  of  statistics  or  of  creedal  statements 
merely.  It  is  rather  a  history  of  the  rise  and  prog- 
ress of  the  Church  of  the  Reformation  in  America, 
from  its  beginning  to  the  present  time.  It  furnishes 
all  Lutherans  reliable  information  with  respect  to 
the  Bodies  herein  represented. 

These  writers  speak  for  themselves.     But  they 


2  INTRODUCTION 

also  Speak  for  their  respective  General  Bodies.  They 
have  been  selected  to  do  this  work  because  of  their 
standing  in  their  ov^n  Synods.  They  are  men  of 
recognized  piety  and  scholarly  attainments.  They 
write  with  authority,  for  they  are  familiar  with  the 
history  of  our  entire  Church,  and  especially  of  that 
particular  branch  to  which  each  belongs. 

A  perusal  of  the  volume  will  reveal  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  attempt  to  shade  off  doctrinal  and  prac- 
tical differences.  There  have  been  differences,  and 
they  still  exist.  The  authors,  with  customary  Luth- 
eran frankness,  seek  to  be  absolutely  true  to  the  his- 
torical development  of  their  portion  of  the  Lutheran 
household,  believing  that  by  this  method  alone  will 
we  come  to  understand  each  other  better.  We  may 
not  be  able  to  see  eye  to  eye  with  our  brethren,  but 
we  must  and  do  respect  their  convictions,  and  are 
encouraged  by  the  recital  of  their  worthy  achieve- 
ments. 

It  is  with  a  sense  of  genuine  pleasure  that  we  offer 
this  volume  to  our  beloved  Church.  We  believe  we 
are  justified  in  the  hope  that  its  appearance  will  be 
very  generally  welcomed. 

And  shall  we  not  devoutly  pray  that,  as  the  stories 
of  the  life  and  works  of  our  several  Lutheran  Bodies 
are  here  brought  together  and  bound  up  in  one  vol- 
ume, so  also  shall  these  Bodies  themselves  gradually 
be  drawn  closer  to  one  another,  until  they  become  a 
unit  in  name  and  faith  and  practical  endeavor  ? 


CONTENTS 


1.  The  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio — 

By  Rev.  Prof.  M.  Loy,  D.  D 5 

2.  The    General    Sy>:od — 

By  Pres.  J.  A.  Singmaster,  D.  D 36 

3.  The   German    Iowa    Synod — 

By  Rev.  Prof.  S.  Fritschel,  D.  D 69 

4.  The  General  Council — 

By  Rev.  Prof.  H.  E.  Jacobs,  D.  D.,  LL.D 93 

5.  The  Synodical  Conference — 

By  Rev,  Prof.  F.  Pieper 127 

6.  The  United  Synod  in  the  South — 

By  Rev.  Prof.  A.  G.  Voigt,  D.  D.,  LL.D 175 

7.  The  United   Norwegian   Church   of  America — 

By  Rev.  Prof.  F.  A.  Schmidt,  D.  D.,  and  Rev.  J.  C. 
Roseland   205 

8.  The  Lutheran  Free  Church — 

By  Prof.  John  O.  Evjen,  Ph.  D 246 

9.  The  Danish  Evangelical    Lutheran    Church    in 

America — 
By  Rev.   Prof.  P.   S.  Vig 21^2 


The  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio 

By  REV.  PROF.  M.  LOY,  D.  D. 

IN  the  early  years  of  the  present  century  a  few 
self-denying  Lutheran  ministers,  imbued  with 
the  true  missionary  spirit,  crossed  the  Allegheny 
Mountains  to  break  the  bread  of  life  to  their  breth- 
ren scattered  in  the  Western  wilds.  Feeling  the 
need  of  mutual  counsel  and  encouragement,  the 
little  company  in  1812  formed  a  special  Conference, 
which  subsequently  developed  into  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Synod  of  Ohio  and  Adjacent  States.  As 
such  it  was  organized  in  18 18  with  15  ministers 
and  about  3500  communicants.  The  members  en- 
countered many  difficulties,  but  by  the  blessing  of 
God  upon  their  zealous  labors  their  numbers  in- 
creased and  their  work  prospered.  In  course  of 
time  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  divide  the  Synod 
into  districts,  of  which  there  are  now  twelve.  These 
hold  meetings  annually,  while  every  two  years  they 
all  meet  in  joint  convention.  The  whole  body  is 
usually  called  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio,  which  now 
numbers  612  ministers,  1160  congregations  and  mis- 
sions and  135,000  communicant  members. 

From  the  beginning  the  pastors  and  congrega- 
tions  thus   united   were   intent   on  preserving   and 

(5) 


6  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

propagating  the  pure  Lutheran  faith,  as  with  their 
limited  opportunities  they  were  able  to  apprehend 
and  maintain  it,  and  many  were  their  conflicts 
with  men  who  endeavored  to  lead  their  people 
astray  by  teaching  otherwise  than  God's  Word 
teaches.  The  Confessions  of  the  Church  were  held 
in  high  esteem,  and  appeals  to  them  were  frequent, 
although  it  was  not  until  1847  that  the  symbolical 
books  were  formally  declared  to  be  the  confessional 
basis  of  Synod,  and  all  candidates  for  the  ministry 
were  required  to  subscribe  to  them.  This  position 
has  been  firmly  maintained  until  the  present  hour, 
and  in  this  all  that  is  distinctive  of  the  Joint  Synod 
of  Ohio  and  Other  States  has  its  root  and  its  ex- 
planation. In  pursuance  of  her  settled  purpose  by 
the  grace  of  her  Lord  to  be  found  faithful  to  the 
pure  gospel  as  He  mercifully  restored  it  to  His 
people  in  the  glorious  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  she  will  not  be  enticed  or  goaded  into  any 
position  or  movement  by  which  the  saving  truth  set 
forth  in  the  Confessions  of  the  Evangelical  Luth- 
eran Church  is  compromised. 

In  taking  this  ground  it  never  entered  the  minds 
of  our  pastors  or  people  to  place  the  Confessions  of 
the  Church  on  an  equality  with  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
These  are  the  very  word  of  God  in  matter  and  in 
form.  "All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof, 
for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness,  that 


OF   THE   JOINT   SYNOD   OF   OHIO  7 

the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  fur- 
nished unto  all  good  works."  2  Tim.  iii.  i6,  17. 
In  the  Scriptures  the  Sovereign  Lord  of  all  has 
revealed  His  righteous  and  His  gracious  will  in 
His  own  words.  They  are  the  only  source  of  our 
knowledge  of  saving  truth,  and  the  only  ultimate 
rule  of  faith  and  life.  Their  decision  is  final,  and 
from  them  no  appeal  can  be  allowed.  The  symbols 
occupy  a  different  place  and  serve  a  different  pur- 
pose. They  are  not  inspired  writings.  They  set 
forth  the  faith  which  men  have  derived  from  the 
Holy  Scriptures  as  the  infallible  source  of  saving 
faith.  The  Lutheran  Church  believes  and  there- 
fore speaks.  A  doctrine  does  not  become  divine 
by  her  act  of  confessing  it,  and  no  one  is  bound  to 
believe  it  because  she  confesses  it.  She  confesses 
it  because  on  the  authority  of  God's  Word  she  be- 
lieves it,  and  she  asks  others  to  believe  it,  and  then 
with  her  to  confess  it,  because  the  Scriptures  teach 
it.  We  have  the  rule  "that  the  Word  of  God  should 
frame  articles  of  faith,  otherwise  no  one,  not  even 
an  angel."  (Snialc.  Art.  H,  2,  15.)  From  that 
rule  we  can  under  no  circumstances  depart,  because 
under  no  circumstances  could  we  consent  to  the 
subject's  usurpation  of  authority  which  belongs 
only  to  the  Sovereign.  Such  usurpation  is  a  mark 
of  the  antichrist,  whose  abominations  the  Refor- 
mation has  taught  us  to  shun  as  an  offense  against 
God  and  man.   Our  Confessions  claim  no  authority 


8  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

over  the  souls  of  men,  but  simply  declare  the  faith 
which  lives  in  our  souls  and  which  clings  to  the 
word  of  the  living  God.  '*He  is  the  Lord;  that  is 
His  name;  and  His  glory  will  He  not  give  to 
another."  But  when  He  speaks  His  people  hear; 
and  when  they  hear  the  good  tidings  which  are  for 
all  people,  how  can  they  otherwise  than  publish 
them  and  bear  witness  to  them  for  the  glory  of  their 
Saviour  and  the  good  of  their  fellow-men?  Those 
who  have  not  the  faith  which  the  Lutheran  Church 
confesses  are  not  expected  to  confess  it ;  but  she  be- 
lieves, and  therefore  speaks. 

In  the  nature  of  things  this  could  not  be  without 
effect  in  her  church  life  and  practice.  By  the  grace 
of  God  the  Christians  united  in  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church  have  known  and  believed  the 
Evangelical  truth  which  is  set  forth  in  their  con- 
fession ;  and  on  that  basis  her  congregations  are  or- 
ganized, her  ministry  is  called,  and  her  discipline 
is  administered.  It  is  this  faith  that  gives  her  the 
distinctive  character  by  which  she  is  known  as  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church.  If  some  are  not 
prepared  to  accept  her  Confessions  and  enter  into 
fellowship  with  her  on  these  terms,  they  are  mani- 
festly not  prepared  to  enter  into  fellowship  with 
her  at  all.  From  the  beginning  she  recognized  no 
other  terms,  and  could  recognize  no  other  without 
abandoning  her  faith  and,  with  it,  her  life  as  the 
Evangelical    Church    of    the    Reformation.       She 


OF  THE   JOINT   SYNOD   OF  OHIO  9 

came  into  being  as  a  visible  organization  by  con- 
fessing the  truth  of  the  gospel  which  God  in 
mercy  restored  to  His  people  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  His  chosen  servant,  and  she  continues 
in  being  by  maintaining  that  blessed  truth  as  the 
basis  upon  which  her  membership  stands  united. 

The  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  recognizes  the  fact  that 
the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  had  her  settled 
faith  and  her  distinctive  character  when  she  wit- 
nessed her  good  confession  at  Augsburg  in  1530, 
as  she  had  declared  it  before  in  the  universally  ac- 
cepted catechisms  prepared  by  Dr.  Luther,  and  in  all 
her  public  teaching  and  preaching.  Those  who  sin- 
cerely adopt  these  confessions  as  the  expression 
of  their  faith  are  in  accord  with  her.  Of  pastors 
and  teachers  it  is  required  indeed  that  they  accept 
the  entire  Concordia  of  1580.  But  this  is  only 
because  a  more  thorough  and  a  more  extensive 
knowledge  of  revealed  truth  is  expected  of  those 
who  are  called  to  teach  it,  not  because  agreement  in 
the  faith  as  set  foi:th  in  the  Catechism  and  the 
Augustana  is  insufficient  for  the  unity  of  the 
Church.  What  we  are  concerned  about  is  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints,  which  we  are  in  con- 
science bound  to  hold  fast  and  perpetuate,  and 
which  is  the  same  in  all  our  symbols.  Our  con- 
troversy with  those  who  reject  a  portion  of  them 
has  its  ground  in  the  conviction  that  such  rejec- 
tion betrays  a  dissent  from  the  Evangelical  doctrine 


lO  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

set  forth  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  whose  true 
import  and  meaning  the  later  symbols  develop  and 
defend. 

''Unto  the  true  unity  of  the  Church  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  agree  concerning  the  doctrines  of  the  Gos- 
pel and  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments.  Nor 
is  it  necessary  that  human  traditions,  rites,  or  cere- 
monies instituted  by  men  should  be  alike  every- 
where: as  St.  Paul  says,  'One  faith,  one  baptism, 
one  God  and  Father  of  all.'  Eph.  iv.  5,  6."  (Augs- 
burg Confession,  Art.  VII.)  That  is  the  principle 
to  which  the  Joint  Synod  is  pledged,  and  by  which 
her  practice  is  governed.  She  loves  the  old  ways 
of  our  fathers,  and  the  beautiful  forms  in  which 
they  worshiped  the  Lord.  She  recognizes  the 
benefits  of  uniformity  in  the  ceremonies  and 
usages  of  the  churches,  and  heartily  seeks  to  pro- 
mote it.  She  desires,  even  in  externals,  to  walk 
in  the  old  paths  and  manifest  her  historical  con- 
nection with  the  old  Church.  But  she  never  fails 
to  distinguish  between  that  which  is  necessary  and 
that  which  is  free.  What  the  Lord  has  not  re- 
quired, the  servant  of  the  Lord  has  no  right  to 
require  as  a  condition  of  membership  in  His 
Church.  He  alone  is  Master,  all  we  are  brethren, 
who  have  no  authority  to  impose  and  no  obliga- 
tion to  bear  any  yoke  of  bondage.  Diversity  in 
matters  merely  human  does  not  interfere  with  the 
unity  of  the  Church,   because   the   Lord   Himself 


OF   THE    JOINT    SYNOD   OF   OHIO  II 

has  given  His  people  liberty  to  arrange  them  as  in 
the  varying  circumstances  of  congregations  they 
think  best.  Ceremonies  instituted  by  men  form 
no  part  of  the  service  of  God,  and  can  never  be  of 
divine  obHgation.  ''We  beheve,  teach  and  confess 
that  the  Church  of  God  of  every  place  and  every 
time  has  the  power,  according  to  its  circumstances, 
to  change  such  ceremonies  in  such  manner  as  may 
be  most  useful  and  edifying  to  the  Church  of  God; 
nevertheless,  that  herein  all  inconsiderateness  and 
offense  should  be  avoided,  and  especial  care  should 
be  taken  to  exercise  forbearance  to  the  weak  in 
faith:  i  Cor.  viii.  9;  Rom.  xiv.  13."  {Form. 
Cone,  Part  I,  ch.  x.  4,  5.)  Human  ordinances 
are  not  divine  laws.  But  when  the  Lord  speaks 
all  alike  must  bow  to  His  authority.  What  He 
requires  is  necessary.  From  His  word  there  can 
be  no  appeal  to  human  thoughts  of  expediency  and 
human  tastes  and  preferences.  In  what  He  teaches 
and  requires  there  must  be  agreement  among  His 
disciples.  And  those  who  are  called  Lutherans 
have  heard  His  voice,  have  believed  His  Word, 
and  according  to  His  will  have  confessed  their 
faith  in  their  symbols.  Their  Confession  is  the 
expression  of  their  agreement  concerning  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Gospel.  It  contains  only  what  is 
necessary  "unto  the  true  unity  of  the  Church."  On 
this  ground  they  have  united,  and  only  on  this 
ground  can  others  unite  with  them. 


12  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

The  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio,  assured  that  the  Evan- 
gehcal  Lutheran  Confession  sets  forth  the  pure 
faith  of  the  gospel,  dihgently  teaches  it  as  well  as 
confesses  it  with  the  Church  of  the  glorious  times 
of  the  Reformation,  and  earnestly  maintains  the 
necessity  of  its  acceptance  as  a  condition  of  recep- 
tion into  her  congregations  and  communion  at  her 
altars.  Accordingly  she  teaches  her  members  to 
bring  their  children  to  Christ  in  Holy  Baptism,  that 
they  may  share  the  great  salvation  which  He  has 
secured  for  our  whole  fallen  race,  and  to  recognize 
the  obligation  laid  upon  them  to  bring  up  their 
children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord, 
and  to  this  end  to  maintain  parochial  schools,  that 
the  word  of  Christ  may  dwell  in  them  richly  in  all 
wisdom. 

She  does  not  grow  weary  of  plying  the  Cate- 
chism and  inculcating  the  precious  truth  unto 
salvation  which  it  declares  in  a  form  as  simple  as  it 
is  profound  in  contents.  She  teaches  her  cate- 
chumens to  know  the  Saviour,  to  confess  Him  be- 
fore the  world,  and  to  walk  worthy  of  Him  who 
has  purchased  them  with  His  blood,  and  called 
them  into  His  kingdom.  She  is  glad  to  number 
them  among  her  communicants  when  they  are 
ready  to  make  the  requisite  confession  and  promise, 
but  not  until,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  this  end  has 
been  accomplished.  As  the  Church  is  the  congre- 
gation of  believers,  she  spares  no  effort  to  lead  those 


OF   THE   JOINT    SYNOD   OF   OHIO  I3 

committed  to  her  instruction  to  an  explicit  faith 
before  she  leads  them  to  a  public  confession.  She 
insists  on  agreement  concerning  the  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel  in  all  cases  as  a  condition  of  fellowship 
in  the  Holy  Supper,  and  therefore  insists  upon 
the  acceptance  of  the  Lutheran  Confession.  She 
does  this,  not  because  she  presumes  that  every 
particular  visible  Church  has  a  divine  right  to 
organize  on  any  basis  that  may  be  agreed  on  by 
the  persons  concerned,  and  then  to  insist  on  the 
acceptance  of  this  basis  as  a  condition  of  member- 
ship, simply  because  these  are  the  original  terms 
of  the  compact.  That  would  be  true  of  a  society 
that  is  purely  human  and  pretends  to  be  nothing 
else.  But  it  is  not  true  of  the  Christian  Church, 
Avhich  is  not  an  association  of  men  for  purposes 
which  they  have  chosen  and  with  means  which 
they  have  devised  according  to  their  own  wisdom  or 
pleasure.  Men  may  form  societies  and  lay  down 
their  own  terms  of  admission  and  membership  as 
they  think  best.  But  there  is  no  such  right  to  do 
what  men  please  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  In  that 
He  is  Lord,  and  only  those  who  are  willingly  sub- 
ject to  Him  as  He  speaks  in  His  Word  are 
entitled  to  a  place  in  it.  To  be  a  congregation  of 
believers  the  members  must  accept  the  faith  de- 
clared in  the  Gospel,  and  in  order  to  have  unity 
they  must  agree  in  that  faith.  'Then  said  Jesus 
to  those  Jews  which  believed  on  Him,  If  ye  con- 


14  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

tinue  in  my  word,  then  are  ye  my  disciples  in- 
deed; and  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth 
shall  make  you  free."  John  viii.  31,  2^2.  ''Now, 
therefore,  ye  are  no  more  strangers  and  foreigners, 
but  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of  the 
household  of  God,  and  are  built  upon  the  founda- 
tion of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ 
Himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone;  in  whom  all 
the  building  fitly  framed  together  groweth  unto  an 
holy  temple  in  the  Lord."  Eph.  ii.  19-21.  Those 
who  believe  in  the  Saviour  are  His  disciples,  and 
they  confess  His  name,  declare  His  truth,  and 
show  forth  His  praise.  The  righteousness  which 
is  of  faith  speaketh  on  this  wise,  **The  Word  is 
nigh  thee,  even  in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy  heart; 
that  is,  the  Word  of  faith  which  we  preach;  that  if 
thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  shalt  believe  in  thy  heart  that  God  hath  raised 
Him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.  For 
with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness, 
and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salva- 
tion." Rom.  X.  8-10.  By  this  confession  Chris- 
tians know  each  other  as  disciples  of  the  same 
Lord,  and  on  the  ground  of  this  they  join  to- 
gether for  the  accomplishment  of  His  gracious 
will.  These  confessing  believers  are  exhorted  to 
"keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of 
peace."  "Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  the  name 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the  same 


OF  THE   JOINT   SYNOD   OF   OHIO  1 5 

thing,  and  that  there  be  no  divisions  among  you; 
but  that  ye  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same 
mind  and  in  the  same  judgment."  i  Cor.  i.  lo. 
Christians  are  such  because  they  beHeve  in  the 
heavenly  truth  which  is  revealed  for  our  salvation. 
That  is  the  one  thing  needful  in  church  organization. 
Holding  and  confessing  this,  they  may,  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  their  liberty,  arrange  as  they  deem  ex- 
pedient what  the  Master  has  not  ordained,  but  left 
to  their  own  wisdom.  Congregations,  as  visible 
associations,  may  make  their  own  regulations  in 
regard  to  matters  of  indifference,  but  they  are 
Christian  congregations  in  virtue  of  their  Christian 
faith  and  its  confession,  not  in  virtue  of  their  human 
regulations.  There  can  be  no  legitimate  basis  of 
union  in  the  Church  but  that  which  the  Lord  lays 
down,  and  there  can  be  no  necessary  conditions  of 
membership  and  fellowship  in  the  Church  but  those 
which  the  Lord  prescribes. 

The  question  of  union,  as  the  Joint  Synod  of 
Ohio  sees  it,  is  not  one  of  mere  expediency  and 
courtesy.  We  cannot  admit  that  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church  erred  in  her  creed,  and  that  from 
the  start  she  sinned  by  uniting  on  that  founda- 
tion and  declining  to  unite  with  such  as  professed 
a  different  faith.  She  was  not  guilty  of  making 
needless  divisions  by  her  evangelical  confession. 
She  insisted  only  on  the  truth  which  the  Scriptures 
teach  and   required  only  what  the  Lord   requires 


1 6  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES    AND   USAGES 

as  conditions  of  membership.  She  cannot  alter 
these  conditions  now,  because  they  are  not  of  her 
making,  and  are  not  subject  to  her  wisdom  or  her 
pleasure.  They  are  obligatory  upon  her  and  upon 
all  men  by  the  authority  of  Him  who  is  King  in 
Zion.  For  this  reason  we  are  constrained  to  stand 
aloof  from  all  church  unions  founded  on  any  other 
basis  than  that  of  the  truth  revealed  in  God's  Word 
and  confessed  in  our  symbols,  and  from  all  move- 
ments and  demonstrations  of  a  unionistic  character, 
participating  in  which  would  imply  the  admission 
that  the  distinctive  doctrines  of  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church  are  no  part  of  the  faith  once  de- 
livered to  the  saints,  but  are  merely  human  opinions, 
and  therefore  have  no  divine  right  in  Christendom, 
and  are  not  binding  upon  Christian  people.  We 
heartily  desire  the  union  of  Christians  and  of 
churches,  but  can  see  neither  fidelity  nor  expediency 
in  a  pretence  of  union  where  there  is  no  agreement 
concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel  and  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  sacraments.  The  only  Script- 
ural way  to  labor  for  union  is  to  labor  for  unity  in 
the  faith  and  agreement  in  its  confession.  That  is 
divinely  required  and  therefore  essential. 

It  is  this  that  has  prevented  our  organic  connec- 
tion even  with  other  bodies  that  bear  the  Lutheran 
name.  Of  right  this  name  stands  for  the  historic 
Church  of  the  Reformation  with  its  incomparable 
Augsburg  Confession.     But  unhappily  not  all  who 


OF   THE   JOINT    SYNOD   OF   OHIO  1 7 

adopt  the  name  adopt  also  that  which  it  imphes. 
Hence  it  comes  that  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  stands 
alone,  notwithstanding  that  general  Lutheran  or- 
ganizations have  been  formed  around  her,  and  not- 
withstanding her  earnest  desire  that  there  should  be 
no   divisions   among  us. 

There  have  been,  and  there  still  are,  some  who 
accept  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  their  own,  but 
who  were  not  and  are  not  willing  to  declare  the 
faith  which  it  sets  forth  to  be  truly  and  really  the 
one  faith  of  the  gospel,  which  God  would  have  all 
men  to  receive,  and  agreement  in  which  is  neces- 
sary unto  the  true  imity  of  the  Church.  In  their 
own  convictions  they  are  in  accord  with  the  doc- 
trines there  confessed,  or  at  least  find  no  other  con- 
fession that  seems  to  them  a  more  adequate  ex- 
pression of  their  beliefs.  Many  of  them  love  the 
Lutheran  name  and  its  historic  associations.  But 
even  those  among  them  who  defend  the  distinctive 
doctrines  of  our  Confession  usually  regard  them  as 
opinions  which  at  most  have  equal  rights  with  the 
opinions  proclaimed  by  other  denominations,  rather 
than  as  the  truth  of  God  which  must  be  held  fast 
at  all  hazards  and  at  every  cost,  because  this  is  the 
Master's  will.  In  the  exercise  of  what  they  deem 
charity,  they  therefore  overlook  the  requirements 
of  faith.  The  prevailing  spirit  among  them  has 
accordingly  always  been  that  of  accommodation  to 
the   beliefs   and   practices   of   churches   that   have 


l8  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

gained  the  ascendency  among  the  American  people. 
Some  have  even  allowed  themselves  to  be  largely 
governed  by  the  thought  that  what  the  great  mass 
of  professed  Christans  around  them  believe  and  do 
must  be  true  and  right,  and  that  the  creed  and 
practice  of  the  Lutheran  Church  should  be  shaped 
accordingly,  as  if  she  lived  and  could  live  only  by 
their  sufferance.  Therefore  evasive  formulas  were 
resorted  to  in  adopting  the  Confession,  and  servile 
concessions  were  made  to  popular  churches  which 
are  not  in  sympathy  with  the  faith  and  spirit  of  the 
Church  of  the  Reformation.  The  Joint  Synod  of 
Ohio,  sincere  in  her  confession  of  the  old  faith, 
could  not  and  cannot,  by  word  or  act,  accept  the 
consent  of  other  denominations  as  the  test  of  gospel 
truth,  and  could  not  and  cannot  form  an  organic 
union  with  a  body  in  which,  notwithstanding  the 
Lutheran  name,  men  could  make  open  assaults 
upon  the  doctrines  confessed  in  the  Catechism  and 
Augsburg  Confession  without  any  fear  of  being 
called  to  account  and  subjected  to  discipline. 
These  doctrines  are  taught  in  God's  Word,  and 
agreement  concerning  them  is  necessary  unto  the 
true  unity  of  the  Church,  though  thousands  of  pro- 
fessing Christians  think  proper  to  dispute  them,  and 
think  themselves  justifiable  in  setting  forth  a  differ- 
ent creed  and  organizing  churches  on  a  different 
basis. 

Even    the    formal    acceptance    of    the    Lutheran 


OF   THE   JOINT    SYNOD   OF   OHIO  IQ 

Confession  may  leave  room  for  legitimate  doubt 
whether  the  agreement  exists  which  is  necessary 
for  union.  Circumstances  may  be  such  as  to  force 
upon  us  the  inquiry,  whether  such  professed  accept- 
ance is  meant  as  implying  that  Romanists  and  Re- 
formed parties,  secretists  and  chiliasts,  shall  not  be 
admitted  to  our  altars  and  churches.  Important  dif- 
ferences in  this  regard  between  us  and  others  were 
brought  to  view  in  the  controversy  respecting  the 
so-called  ''four  points." 

Convinced  from  their  own  publications  of  the 
antichristian  character  and  tendency  of  such  asso- 
ciations, the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  declares :  ''The 
rule  among  us  must  be,  and  ever  remain,  that  mem- 
bers of  secret  societies  cannot  be  received  as  mem- 
bers of  our  congregations,  nor  may  they  continue 
their  membership  or  be  admitted  to  the  Holy  Sup- 
per an  indefinite  length  of  time."  The  ground  of 
this  rule  is  not  merely  the  appearance  of  evil  that 
lies  in  their  shunning  the  light,  although  the  element 
of  secrecy  is  on  this  ground  a  serious  objection.  It 
awakens  just  suspicion,  to  which  a  Christian  should 
not  willingly  make  himself  subject.  But  the  evil 
is  of  a  more  dire  and  dangerous  nature.  When  a 
society,  such  as  that  of  the  Free  Masons,  Odd  Fel- 
lows, and  those  of  similar  character,  inculcates 
rationalistic  principles  subversive  of  Christianity, 
destroying  souls  by  leading  them  to  trust  in  another 
righteousness  than  that  of  Christ,  and  to  engage  in 


20  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

another  worship  than  that  of  the  triune  God,  while 
at  the  same  time  it  abuses  the  sacred  oath  and 
teaches  and  practices  a  so-called  charity  that  is  not 
in  harmony  with  the  gospel,  we  cannot  regard  its 
adherents,  whatever  their  professions  or  their  inten- 
tions may  be,  as  in  a  proper  condition  for  member- 
ship in  the  Christian  Church  and  communion  at  her 
altar.  They  may  not  all  be  aware  that  their 
societies  operate  against  the  truth  in  Jesus,  as 
many  persons  are  not  aware  that  in  their 
natural  state  they  are  children  of  wrath,  and  with- 
out Christ  can  do  nothing.  But  this  does  not 
change  the  fact.  And  it  is  the  Church's  calling  to 
teach :  where  sin  is  not  seen  she  must  expose  it,  and 
where  the  saving  truth  is  not  known  she  must  im- 
part it.  This  our  pastors  are  willing  to  do  with  all 
patience  and  with  all  allowance  for  circumstances; 
but  they  are  not  willing  first  to  receive  secretists 
into  church  fellowship  and  afterwards  endeavor  to 
do  the  work  necessary  to  qualify  them  for  it.  While 
all  secret  societies  are  not  in  the  same  degree  in 
conflict  with  Christian  faith  and  love,  and  a  differ- 
ence will  therefore  be  made  in  dealing  with  them, 
they  are  all  objectionable,  and  the  watchman  on 
Zion's  walls  must  warn  against  them  and  seek  to 
rescue  souls  from  their  evil  influence.  With  those 
who  are  willing  to  do  nothing  against  these  anti- 
christian  powers,  and  say  nothing  while  souls  com- 
mitted to  their  charge  are  led  to  ruin  by  secretism, 


OF   THE   JOINT    SYNOD   OF   OHIO  21 

we  are  not  agreed,  and  cannot  have  fellowship. 

As  regards  chiliasm,  the  doctrine  that  Christ  shall 
return  to  reign  a  thousand  years  upon  earth  prior 
to  the  final  judgment,  the  Lutheran  confessors  at 
Augsburg  in  1530  declared,  that  "they  condemn 
others  also  who  now  scatter  Jewish  opinions,  that 
before  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  the  godly  shall 
occupy  the  kingdom  of  the  world,  the  wicked  being 
everywhere  suppressed."  (Augsb.  Conf.,  Art. 
XVII.)  The  kingdom  of  our  Lord  is  not  of  this 
world,  but  is  a  kingdom  of  grace  in  which  believers 
are  prepared  for  the  kingdom  of  glory.  According 
to  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which  our  children  learn 
and  confess  before  they  are  admitted  to  holy  com- 
munion, Christ  shall  come  at  the  last  day,  as  the 
Scriptures  teach,  "to  judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead,"  not  to  establish  a  temporal  kingdom  which 
would  be  essentially  different  from  that  which  is 
already  established,  and  in  which  He  reigns  by 
His  word  and  sacraments  as  His  blessed  means  of 
grace  unto  salvation.  This  is  still  the  voice  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  and  with  this  we  are 
in  complete  and  hearty  accord.  We  ask  only  that 
earnest  account  be  made  of  the  truth  confessed,  and 
that  accordingly  no  doctrine  be  sanctioned,  not  even 
by  the  consent  implied  in  silence,  which  conflicts 
with  that  confession. 

In  the  eyes  of  the  Joint  Synod,  admitting  minis- 
ters of  other  churches  and  of  a  different  confession 


22  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

to  our  pulpits  is  inconsistent  with  her  profession  and 
her  duty.  Notwithstanding  all  the  abuse  heaped 
upon  us  for  entertaining  this  conviction,  we  must 
persist  in  holding  it  and  ordering  our  practice  ac- 
cordingly. Both  faith  and  charity  require  it.  We 
do  not  teach  that  ministers  of  other  churches  have 
no  valid  call  to  preach  the  Word  and  administer  the 
sacraments,  or  that  their  ministrations  are  without 
efficacy.  Nothing  of  that  sort  is  taught  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  nothing  of  that  sort  appears  in  our 
Confessions.  The  Lord  requires  that  ministers  be 
rightly  called  by  the  Church,  to  which  He  has  en- 
trusted the  means  of  grace,  but  does  not  command 
the  rite  of  ordination  to  make  the  call  valid,  and 
least  of  all  does  He  make  the  efficacy  of  the  Word 
and  sacrament  dependent  on  such  ordination  or  any 
other  ecclesiastical  rites.  As  far  as  any  hindrances 
arising  from  such  questions  are  concerned,  pastors 
of  other  churches  would  be  cheerfully  welcomed  to 
our  pulpits.  But  the  Lutheran  Church  would  betray 
the  insincerity  of  her  confession  if  she  permitted 
men  to  teach  in  her  congregations  who  do  not  even 
profess  to  believe  her  doctrines,  and  who,  as  regards 
the  distinctive  articles  of  her  faith,  avow  their  dis- 
sent from  her  teaching.  Fully  assured  that  what 
she  confesses  is  the  truth,  which  God  requires  her 
to  teach  for  the  glory  of  His  name  and  the  salvation 
of  souls  purchased  by  His  blood,  she  cannot  entrust 
the  work  of  teaching  in  her  churches  and  schools 


OF  THE   JOINT   SYNOD   OF   OHIO  2^ 

to  men  who  do  not  agree  with  her  concerning  the 
doctrine  of  the  gospel  which  she  pubHcIy  proclaims 
in  her  symbols.  Even  if  preachers  of  other  de- 
nominations would,  in  order  to  gain  access  to  our 
pulpits,  give  satisfactory  assurances  that  they  will 
teach  nothing  at  variance  with  our  faith,  they 
could  not,  as  long  as  they  declare  their  adherence 
to  a  different  confession,  be  permitted  to  preach  to 
our  congregations.  That  act  of  pulpit  fellowship 
itself  would  be  understood  as  a  declaration  on  our 
part  that  the  differences  between  their  churches 
and  ours  are  not  of  such  a  nature  as  to  necessitate 
separate  organizations,  and  therefore  as  an  admis- 
sion that  we  are  maintaining  divisions  which  have 
no  ground  in  faith  and  conscience,  and  for  that 
reason  are  sinful.  The  Lutheran  Church  is  sincere 
in  her  confession,  and  therefore  cannot  consent, 
by  any  voluntary  act  of  hers,  to  make  the  impression 
that  in  her  estimation  her  distinctive  doctrines  are 
not  of  God  and  are  not  necessary  unto  the  true 
unity  of  the  Church.  Her  rule  is  ''Mark  them 
which  cause  divisions  and  offenses  contrary  to  the 
doctrine  which  ye  have  learned,  and  avoid  them." 
Rom.  xvi.  17.  Those  who  believe  what  is  written 
by  inspiration  of  God  for  their  learning,  and  from 
their  hearts  confess  what  they  believe  because  it  is 
the  very  truth  of  God,  will  readily  understand  why 
no  considerations  of  courtesy  are  permitted  to  move 
us  in  opposition  to  the  requirements  of  faith. 


24  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

The  same  rule  applies  to  the  other  question  of 
altar  fellowship.  Admitting  members  of  other  de- 
nominations to  communion  in  our  churches  would 
be  practically  declaring  that  the  differences  between 
them  and  us  do  not  pertain  to  the  faith,  but  are 
mere  matters  of  human  opinion  which  belong  to  the 
sphere  of  liberty;  that  therefore  the  Lutheran 
Church  has  grievously  erred  in  putting  her  dis- 
tinctive doctrines  into  her  Confession  as  a  part  of 
the  Christian  Creed;  and  that  by  asserting  agree- 
ment in  these,  as  well  in  the  other  parts  of  her  Con- 
fession, to  be  requisite  to  true  unity,  and  therefore 
a  necessary  condition  of  membership  and  fellow- 
ship, she  has  made  needless  divisions  in  the  Church. 
The  Joint  Synod  sincerely  accepts  the  Lutheran 
Confession,  and  therefore  cannot  do  this.  She 
cannot  admit  that  the  Lutheran  Church  sets  forth 
human  opinions  as  articles  of  faith,  and  thus  seeks 
to  bind  human  ordinances  on  the  consciences  of 
Christ's  free  people.  In  her  eyes  such  an  admis- 
sion would  undermine  her  confessional  foundation 
and  brand  the  great  Church  of  the  Reformation  as 
an  unevangelical  sect,  which  before  God  has  no 
right  to  live.  Such  doctrines  as  those  taught  in 
our  Catechism  and  Augsburg  Confession  concern- 
ing Absolution,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 
for  example,  are  not  products  of  human  reason,  or 
opinions  that  rest  on  rational  probabilities.  They 
belong   to    our    faith.      We    believe    them    because 


OF  THE   JOINT   SYNOD   OF  OHIO  25 

God's  Word  teaches  them,  and  we  confess  them  be- 
cause we  beheve  them.  If  others  do  not  beHeve 
them,  we  deplore  it  and  wish  it  were  otherwise, 
but  that  cannot  be  allowed  to  shake  or  disturb  our 
faith.  Their  conduct  is  not  our  rule  or  stand- 
ard. We  abide  by  the  Holy  Scriptures,  whatever 
attitude  others  may  assume  towards  tl:e  doctrines 
which  they  teach  us.  Meantime  it  does  not  enter 
our  hearts  to  think  or  say  that  all  other  denomina- 
tions are  not  churches,  or  that  their  members  are 
not  Christians.  The  imputation  to  us  of  such 
opinions  is  sheer  uncharitableness.  There  is  noth- 
ing to  warrant  and  nothing  to  justify  it.  We  hold 
no  such  opinions,  and  maintain  nothing  from 
which  they  could  be  justly  inferred.  There  are 
churches  that  err.  They  are  churches  notwith- 
standing their  errors,  and  they  would  not  be 
churches  if  there  were  no  Christian  believers 
among  them.  But  we  could  not  answer  for  it  on 
the  judgment  day  if  by  word  or  act  we  gave  our 
sanction  to  their  error.  Who  shall  blame  us  for 
leaving  the  responsibility  for  it  to  those  who  make 
divisions  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  we  have 
learned,  and  for  abiding  by  the  truth  of  the  gospel, 
notwithstanding  their  obstinate  persistence  in  error 
and  consequent  refusal  to  join  us  in  confessing  that 
truth?  Erring  denominations  may  still  retain 
enough  of  the  heavenly  doctrine  to  lead  souls  to 
Christ,  the  onlv  and  the  all-sufficient  Saviour  of 


26  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

men,  and  may  thus  have  the  children  of  God  among 
them  who  properly  constitute  the  Church.  But 
that  does  not  render  their  errors  harmless.  On  the 
contrary,  these  are  a  source  of  constant  danger  to 
the  spiritual  life  of  the  individual  and  of  the  con- 
gregation. "Shun  profane  and  vain  babblings, 
for  they  will  increase  unto  more  ungodliness;  and 
their  word  will  eat  as  doth  a  canker."  2  Tim.  ii. 
16,  17.  Error  spreads;  the  little  leaven  permitted 
to  work,  in  course  of  time  leavens  the  whole  lump. 
When  the  Church  becomes  indifferent  to  the  purity 
of  the  faith,  Satan  uses  his  opportunity  of  banish- 
ing the  truth  revealed  for  our  salvation  and  urging 
men  to  flee  for  refuge  to  their  own  natural  re- 
sources which  cannot  save.  The  subject  is  one  of 
such  serious  moment,  involving  the  glory  of  our 
blessed  Redeemer  and  the  salvation  of  millions  of 
our  ruined  race,  that  thoughtful  minds  and  loving 
hearts  must  look  with  amazement  upon  the  sad  and 
strange  spectacle  of  Christian  men  condemning 
the  firm  adherence  of  other  Christian  men  to  the 
saving  truth  which  they  have  learned  from  the 
Scriptures,  and  for  which,  according  to  the  divine 
command,  they  earnestly  contend,  even  if  such 
contention  result  in  the  separation  of  those  who 
will  not  accept  it.  If  some  will  not  join  us  in  con- 
fessing the  truth,  we  certainly  cannot  join  them  in 
confessing  their  error.  Neither  can  we  admit  such 
human    error    to    be    ultimately    as    good    and    as 


or   THE   JOINT   SYNOD   OF   OHIO  27 

effectual  for  salvation  as  the  good  tidings  revealed 
for  our  enlightenment  from  heaven.  We  cannot, 
in  our  loyalty  to  our  Lord,  do  otherwise  than  de- 
cline to  have  fellowship  at  the  altar  of  the  Lord 
with  those  who  teach  and  confess  otherwise  than 
the  Word  of  God  teaches.  As  to  whether  those 
who  present  themselves  for  communion  are  really 
Christians  or  not,  that  is,  as  to  whether  they  be- 
lieve in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  unto  the  saving  of 
the  soul  or  not,  that  is  altogether  a  different  mat- 
ter. It  is  well  for  all  to  bear  in  mind  that  under 
no  circumstances  is  it  man's  calling  or  business  to 
judge  the  heart.  That  is  God's  prerogative.  If  a 
person  is  not  wilHng  to  accept  the  truth  which  the 
Church  believes  and  confesses,  we  can  only  say  that 
he  is  not  yet  prepared  to  meet  the  conditions  of 
church  fellowship.  Of  that  the  Church  must  judge, 
and  nothing  more.  Our  pastors  are  ready  to  teach 
the  truth  which  by  the  grace  of  God  she  possesses. 
If  anyone  will  not  accept  instruction,  or  being  in- 
structed will  not  accept  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel, 
agreement  concerning  wdiich  is  necessary  to  the 
true  unity  of  the  Church,  he  must  answer  for  it,  as 
we  must  answer  for  our  teaching  and  confession: 
God  is  his  judge,  as  He  is  ours.  In  view  of  that 
judgment  we  cannot  abandon  our  Scriptural  faith 
and  confession  and  make  other  terms  of  fellowship 
to  suit  his  dissenting  opinions. 

The  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  has  always  been  willing 


28  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

to  make  due  allowance  for  hindrances  put  into  the 
way  of  consistent  Lutheran  practice  by  customs 
handed  down  from  times  of  relaxed  vigilance.  She 
is  well  aware  that  where  unionism  and  secretism 
have  held  sway  for  years  they  cannot  be  eradicated 
in  a  day.  She  does  not  expect  this.  She  advo- 
cates no  rash  and  revolutionary  measures.  But 
with  her  Lutheran  Confession  she  insists  that 
agreement  concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel  is 
a  necessary  condition  of  union  and  communion  in 
the  Church;  that  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  concern- 
ing wdiich  agreement  is  necessary,  is  set  forth  in 
her  confession  of  faith;  and  that  she  could  not  be 
faithful  if  she  admitted  that  in  any  case  such  agree- 
ment is  not  necessary.  When  the  confessional 
principle  is  once  accepted  and  the  teaching  is  fully 
and  faithfully  conformed  to  it  as  the  regulative  of 
Church  practice,  she  can  patiently  wait  while  the 
Word  of  God  is  doing  its  work  in  the  congrega- 
tions. She  has  had  need  for  patience  in  her  own 
congregations,  and  has  need  for  patience  still.  But 
slie  can  allow  no  exceptions  to  the  rule  that  those 
who  preach  in  her  pulpits  and  commune  at  her 
altars  must  agree  in  the  faith  which  the  gospel 
teaches  and  which  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church 
confesses.  There  are  individuals  whose  weakness 
demands  great  tenderness  of  treatment  and  whose 
previous  training  pleads  for  patience ;  there  may  be 
instances  in  which  it  is  difficult  to  decide  whether 


OF   THE    JOINT    SYNOD    OF    OHIO  29 

the  necessary  conditions  of  fellowship  have  been 
met,  and  which  leave  room  for  a  difference  of  judg- 
ment in  this  regard;  but  these,  like  all  other  cases, 
must  be  treated  under  the  rule  that  agreement  con- 
cerning the  doctrine  of  the  gospel  is  necessary  to  the 
true  unity  of  the  Church,  not  as  exceptions  that 
justify  a  violation  of  the  confessional  principle. 

To  candid  minds  it  must  be  apparent,  that  when 
a  body  claiming  to  be  Lutheran  finds  our  honest 
adherence  to  the  Lutheran  faith  and  confession,  in 
doctrine  and  in  practice,  a  valid  ground  for  estab- 
lishing opposition  congregations  on  a  professedly 
more  liberal  basis,  to  the  great  detriment  of  sound 
evangelical  doctrine  and  discipline,  its  professions 
of  agreement  with  us  cannot  be  accepted  with  un- 
questioning confidence.  Even  when  the  Confes- 
sions of  the  Lutheran  Church  are  formally  adopted, 
there  is  still  an  essential  disagreement  between  those 
w^ho  hold  the  doctrines  there  set  forth  to  be  the 
eternal  truth  of  God,  agreement  in  which  is  neces- 
sary to  the  true  unity  of  the  Church,  and  those 
who,  while  they  profess  to  accept  them,  still  re- 
gard them  merely  as  the  expression  of  human  opin- 
ions which  we  have  not  even  the  right,  much  less 
the  duty,  to  enforce  in  Church  organization  and  dis- 
cipline, and  disagreement  concerning  which  can, 
therefore,  form  no  barrier  to  Church  fellowship.  If 
that  which  our  Augsburg  Confession  publishes  as 
the  pure  Christian  faith  is  the  very  truth  of  the 


^O  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

gospel,  given  by  inspiration  of  God  in  the  Scriptures 
for  all  men  and  all  times,  we  can  only  insist  on  its 
maintenance,  whether  men,  call  themselves  what 
they  may,  accept  it  and  go  with  us,  or  reject  it 
and  turn  away  from  us;  if  it  be  not  the  blessed 
truth  revealed  from  heaven  for  our  learning  and 
the  saving  of  our  sinful  souls,  there  can  be  no 
more  grievous  sin  than  that  of  attempting  to  lay 
it  as  a  yoke  upon  the  necks  of  God's  people,  and 
making  and  maintaining  divisions  on  account  of 
it.  The  Lutheran  Church  believes  the  truth  which 
God  has  made  known  to  her  by  the  gospel,  and 
therefore  cannot  think  of  relinquishing  it,  or  any 
part  of  it,  for  the  accommodation  of  those  who  de- 
cline to  believe  it.  That  is  the  position  of  the  Joint 
Synod. 

On  the  subject  of  predestination,  which  has  been 
much  mooted  in  recent  years,  she  maintains  the 
same  fidelity  to  the  precious  truth  of  the  gospel. 
Practically  the  Lutheran  Church  has  always  been 
a  unit  in  the  rejection  of  those  gloomy  errors  which 
center  in  the  theory  of  absolute  election  to  faith 
and  irresistible  grace  for  a  chosen  few.  While  she 
never  swerved  from  the  fundamental  truth  that 
salvation  is  by  grace  alone,  she  just  as  firmly  main- 
tained the  other  fundamental  truth  that  salvation 
is  by  faith  alone,  as  the  only  means  by  which  the 
soul  can  appropriate  the  merits  of  Christ.  Nor  was 
she   ever   moved   by   the   reasoning   of   Reformed 


OF   THE   JOINT   SYNOD  OF   OHIO  3I 

churches,  plausible  as  it  is  sometimes  made  to  ap- 
pear, that  if  faith  has  any  influence  on  the  saving 
of  the  soul,  man's  power  and  merit  must  have  some 
share  in  effecting  the  salvation.  The  plain  teach- 
ing of  the  Bible,  that  all  is  due  to  God's  grace,  not- 
withstanding that  faith  is  indispensable,  proves 
such  reasoning  false.  *'For  by  grace  are  ye  saved 
through  faith;  and  that  not  of  yourselves:  it  is 
the  gift  of  God."  Eph.  ii.  8.  "For  God  so  loved 
the  world  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son, 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish, 
but  have  everlasting  life."  John  iii.  i6.  The  Holy 
Spirit  knows  better  than  man  in  his  pride  of  reason 
what  is  requisite  that  all  may  be  ascribed  to  grace 
and  all  the  glory  may  be  given  to  God.  Salvation  is 
by  grace  alone,  and  all  the  glory  of  it  belongs  to 
God ;  and  yet  the  rule  is  clearly  revealed  that  *'he 
that  believeth  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned."  Faith  is  necessary  to  salva- 
tion. For  human  thought  there  is  unquestionably 
a  difficulty  in  the  doctrine.  H  it  depends  wholly 
on  God's  will  who  shall  be  saved,  it  is  not  easy 
to  see  how,  since  the  Scriptures  declare  that  the 
will  of  God  is  the  salvation  of  all,  any  soul  should 
be  lost ;  if  it  depends  in  any  degree  on  man,  it  is  not 
easy  to  see  how,  since  the  Scriptures  declare  that 
all  are  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  any  soul  should 
be  saved.  To  overcome  the  difficulty,  Calvinists 
assume  that   God  makes  a  difference  by  electing 


32  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

some  and  not  electing  others,  by  His  sovereign 
right  choosing  some  persons  whom  He  pleases  to 
save,  and  by  His  sovereign  might  accomplishing 
His  pleasure  in  the  chosen  few,  while  all  the  others 
are  passed  by  and  left  to  perish  in  their  helplessness. 
The  dreadful  solution  satisfies  the  reason  of  many, 
though  it  may  shock  their  hearts,  and  in  these 
latter  evil  days  even  some  of  the  Lutheran  name 
have  been  induced  to  adopt  it  in  its  main  features, 
arguing  indeed  that  salvation  is  thus  still  by  faith, 
because  God  always  makes  believers  of  those  whom 
He  elects  to  salvation,  but  overlooking  the  fact  that 
in  the  same  sense  salvation  is  by  good  works,  since 
He  always  leads  His  people  heavenward  in  the  paths 
of  holiness.  No  reasoning  could  induce  the  Joint 
Synod  of  Ohio  to  turn  away  from  the  comforting 
truth  of  the  gospel  for  which  the  Lutheran  Church 
contended  during  the  past  centuries  of  her  history, 
and  to  exchange  it  for  Calvinistic  errors  which  her 
teachers  have  again  and  again  exposed  and  refuted 
from,  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

But  she  does  not  on  that  account  adopt  the  other 
solution  which  reason  suggests  of  the  problem. 
Salvation  is  by  faith,  but  it  is  not  by  man's  power 
and  merit.  Faith  is  the  gift  of  God,  but  it  is  not 
forced  upon  any  man;  and  it  has  no  merit  of  its 
own,  but  appropriates  Christ's  merit.  Salvation  is 
all  a  work  of  God's  grace,  and  all  the  praise  belongs 
to  Him.     But  when  He  calls  men  by  the  gospel 


OF   THE   JOINT    SYNOD   OF   OHIO  33 

it  is  His  will  that  not  only  an  elect  portion  of  the 
called,  but  that  all  should  believe  it  and  be  saved, 
and  He  offers  to  all  of  them  the  grace  needful 
to  this  end.  If  any  to  wliom  the  Word  of  this 
salvation  is  sent  are  not  saved,  it  is  only  because 
the  will  of  God,  which  in  the  domain  of  grace  never 
works  irresistibly  and  never  coerces  the  human  will, 
was  wilfully  resisted.  "How  often  would  I,"  says 
our  merciful  Saviour,  *'have  gathered  thy  children 
together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under 
her  wings,  and  ye  would  not."  Matt.  xxii.  2>7- 
"That,  however,"  says  our  Confession,  "many  are 
called  and  few  are  chosen,  does  not  mean  that  God 
is  unwilling  that  all  should  be  saved ;  but  the  reason 
is  that  they  do  not  at  all  hear  God's  Word,  but  wil- 
fully despise  it,  close  their  ears  and  harden  their 
hearts,  and  in  this  way  foreclose  the  ordinary  way 
to  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  that  He  cannot  effect  His 
work  in  them;  or  when  it  is  heard,  they  consider 
it  of  no  account  and  do  not  heed  it."  {Form.  Cone. 
526,  II.)  By  this  we  abide.  So  far  as  the  Joint 
Synod  of  Ohio  is  concerned,  it  is  utterly  vain  to 
argue  that  after  all  our  explanations  there  are  still 
difficulties  in  our  doctrine  of  conversion  wdiich 
would  be  escaped  by  adopting  the  Calvinistic  sys- 
tem. It  is  vain,  because  she  builds  her  faith  on 
Holy  Scripture,  not  on  man's  speculative  ability  or 
his  success  in  solving  theological  or  psychological 
problems.  Whatever  may  be  the  explanation  of 
3 


34  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

the  mystery  encountered  in  the  doctrine  of  human 
conversion  by  divine  grace,  wg  are  quite  sure  that 
it  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  unscriptural  assumption 
that  with  God  there  is  respect  of  persons,  and  that 
He  saves  some  because  He  wills  it  and  elects  them 
to  faith  and  salvation,  and  does  not  save  others 
because  He  had  not  the  will  to  elect  them.  He 
would  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and  to  come  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  is  "not  willing  that 
any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  re- 
pentance." 2  Pet.  iii.  9.  The  responsibility  of  choos- 
ing death  rather  than  life  rests  wholly  upon  the  un- 
believing sinner,  in  no  respect  and  in  no  degree 
upon  our  blessed  Lord,  who  left  nothing  undone 
that  His  grace  could  do  to  effect  the  salvation  of 
all  alike.  The  doctrine  of  an  absolute  election,  in 
which  no  reference  is  had  to  the  soul's  relation  to 
Christ  by  faith,  solves  difficulties  only  at  the  ex- 
pense of  gospel  grace  and  truth  and  comfort,  and 
in  fidelity  to  Christ  and  the  Church  we  can  only 
reject  it. 

The  Evangelical  Lutheran  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio 
and  Other  States  stands  alone,  not  because  she 
closes  her  eyes  to  the  importance  of  uniting  Synods 
and  churches,  and  not  because  she  has  any  special 
theological  or  ecclesiastical  tendencies  to  maintain, 
or  any  peculiar  phase  of  Lutheranism  to  advocate, 
but  simply  because  she  believes  the  sacred  truth 
which  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  confesses. 


OF   THE   JOINT   SYNOD   OF   OHIO  35 

holds  it  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel  concerning 
which  agreement  is  necessary  to  the  true  unity  of 
the  Church,  and  can  therefore  unite  with  others  on 
no  other  basis,  hearing  and  heeding  what  the  Spirit 
saith  unto  the  churches :  ''Hold  that  fast  which  thou 
hast,  that  no  man  take  thy  crown." 


The  General  Synod. 

By  PRESIDENT  J.  A.  SINGMASTER,  D.  D. 

IN  order  to  make  clear  the  ^'distinctive"  character 
of  the  General  Synod,  a  brief  sketch  of  its  his- 
tory is  required. 

The  General  Synod  is  the  earliest  and  most  con- 
spicuous example  of  the  effort  to  unite  all  the  Luth- 
eran Synods  in  America  in  one  general  body.  The 
prime  mover  in  its  organization  "was  the  Ministe- 
rium  of  Pennsylvania,  which  at  a  meeting  in  Har- 
risburg,  in  1818,  expressed  the  conviction  that  it 
was  "desirable  that  the  different  Evangelical  Luth- 
eran Synods  in  the  United  States  should  in  some 
way  or  other  stand  in  closer  connection  with  each 
other."  These  Synods,  five  in  number,  included 
the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  and  that  of  New 
York  and  the  Synods  of  North  Carolina,  Ohio  and 
Maryland.  Their  total  membership  was  about  35,- 
000,  of  whom  more  than  half  belonged  to  the  Min- 
isterium of  Pennsylvania. 

The  hopes  of  the  Ministerium  were  realized  in  the 
founding  of  the  General  Synod  at  Hagerstown, 
Md.,  October  22d,  1820.  The  above-named  Synods 
were  represented  by  delegates,  with  the  exception 
of  the  Ohio  Svnod,  which  refused  to  unite  in  the 

(36) 


J 


OF    THE    GENERAL    SYNOD  37 

movement  for  fear  that  its  rights  would  not  be 
properly  conserved.  The  Tennessee  Synod,  which 
was  formed  in  July,  1820,  by  withdrawing  from  the 
North  Carolina  Synod,  sent  no  delegates. 

At  the  second  meeting  of  the  General  Synod,  held 
at  Frederick,  Md.,  October,  1823,  the  Ministerium 
of  Pennsylvania  was  not  represented,  having  been 
constrained  to  abandon  the  new  project  on  account 
of  the  prejudices  of  many  of  its  congregations  and 
the  fears  of  some  of  its  ministers  who  dreaded 
centralization  of  power  in  a  general  body.  'The 
recession  of  the  parent  Synod,  which  constituted 
more  than  one-half  of  the  Church,  spread  a  gloom 
over  the  proceedings  and  produced  the  impression 
that  the  General  Synod  would  prove  a  failure.  The 
hopes  which  had  been  cherished  for  the  improve- 
ment of  our  Zion  seemed  blasted,  and  many  were 
disposed  to  abandon  the  project  of  a  union.  The 
following  resolution  was  offered  and  unanimously 
adopted : 

Resolved,  That  it  is  with  feelings  of  the  deepest  regret  that 
we  learn  from  the  minutes  of  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania  that 
they  were  induced  by  peculiar  circumstances  for  the  present  to 
recede  from  an  institution  which  they  aided  in  establishing 
and  which  they  still  profess  to  regard  as  proper  and  highly 
beneficial  to  the  interests  of  the  Church,  but  that  this  Synod 
entertains  the  highest  confidence  in  their  brethren  of  Penn- 
sylvania, and  confidently  trusts  that  they  will  resume  their 
connection  with  the  General  Synod* 

*  Evangelical  Review,  Vol.  V,  244. 


38  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

The  return  of  the  Ministerium  was  delayed  for 
thirty  years,  until  1853.  In  the  meantime  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  went  bravely  on,  founding  its  schools 
and  firmly  establishing  its  work.  The  direct  in- 
fluence, therefore,  of  the  Ministerium  on  the  con- 
fessional and  the  practical  development  of  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  could  not  have  been  large  during  the  first 
generation  of  its  history.  In  the  decade  following 
1853,  its  influence  was  considerable,  but  by  no 
means  dominating.  Indirectly,  the  two  bodies  in- 
fluenced each  other,  for  there  was  no  contention 
between  them.  Moreover,  many  of  the  men  who 
became  prominent  in  the  Ministerium  and  the  Gen- 
eral Council  received  their  theological  training  at 
the  General  Synod  Seminary. 

From  the  feeble  beginnings  of  1820  and  1823,  the 
General  Synod  grew  to  be  a  relatively  large  body. 
In  i860,  when  it  attained  its  greatest  comparative 
strength,  it  embraced  864  out  of  13 13  ministers,  and 
164,000  out  of  245,000  communicants,  or  about  66 
per  cent,  of  the  entire  Lutheran  Church  in  America. 
This  proportion  has  not  been  reached  by  any  other 
body,  though  the  General  Synod  is  now  outnum- 
bered by  the  Synodical  Conference  and  the  General 
Council. 

Between  the  years  i860  and  1866,  the  General 
Synod  lost  over  70,000  members  through  the  with- 
drawal of  the  Southern  Synods  on  account  of  the 
Civil  War,  and  the  withdrawal  of  those  which  later 


OF    THE    GENERAL    SYNOD  39 

formed  the  General  Council.  The  departure  of  the 
latter  was  precipitated  by  a  parliamentary  ruling  at 
the  convention  of  the  General  Synod  at  Fort  Wayne, 
in  1866,  the  separation,  however,  being  inevitable 
on  other  grounds,  confessional,  practical,  and  per- 
sonal. In  spite  of  these  lamentable  losses,  such  has 
been  the  recuperative  power  of  the  General  Synod 
that  at  present  (1913)  it  numbers  1366  ministers 
and  330,000  confirmed  members.  The  growth  of 
the  entire  Lutheran  Church  in  the  meantime  has 
been  phenomenal;  it  numbers  now  2,321,000  mem- 
bers. 

Though  the  General  Synod  has  not  in  all  respects 
realized  the  hopes  of  its  founders,  it  has  certainly 
proved  the  wisdom  of  its  organization  by  the  service 
it  has  rendered  to  Lutheranism  and  to  Christianity. 
The  fathers  who  founded  it  were  wise  and  good 
men,  but  they  were  not  provided  with  superhuman 
foresight,  which  alone  could  have  calculated  on  the 
mighty  changes  which  took  place  in  Church  and 
State  during  the  last  century.  Even  had  the  events 
been  foreknown,  it  is  hardly  conceivable  that  any 
general  organization  could  have  been  made  strong 
enough  and  also  flexible  enough  to  embrace  the  di- 
verse tongues  and  the  varied  shades  of  doctrinal 
interpretation  of  our  great  Lutheran  Church. 

The  formation  of  the  General  Synod  was  an 
event  of  surpassing  importance  in  the  history  of 
American  Lutheranism,  both  from  a  practical  and 


40  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

a  doctrinal  standpoint.  It  preserved  at  that  time 
the  identity  of  the  Lutheran  Church  on  this  con- 
tinent. ''The  General  Synod  must  be  regarded  as  a 
very  important  forward  movement,  and  its  influence 
as  beneficial.  It  necessarily  v^as  not  without  the 
weaknesses  that  characterized  the  Lutheran  Church 
at  that  time.  One  who  ignores  the  entire  historical 
development  will  find  much  to  criticise  and  con- 
demn, when  examined  from  the  standpoint  of  what 
is  demanded  by  consistency  with  accurate  theologi- 
cal definitions  and  clear  conceptions  of  church  pol- 
ity. But  he  will  find  just  as  much  that  incurs  the 
same  judgment  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Synods 
that  united  to  form  it.  The  faults  peculiar  to  each 
Synod  were  lost  while  only  the  common  faults  of 
all  of  them  remained.  The  General  Synod  was  a 
protest  against  the  Socinianizing  tendency  in  New 
York  and  the  schemes  of  a  union  with  the  Re- 
formed in  Pennsylvania,  and  with  the  Episcopalians 
in  North  Carolina.  It  stood  for  the  independent 
existence  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  and 
the  clear  and  unequivocal  confession  of  a  positive 
Lutheran  faith.  It  was  not  ready  yet,  as  these 
Synods  were  not  ready,  to  return  to  the  foundations 
laid  by  Muhlenberg  and  his  associates,  from  which 
there  had  been  a  general  recession  from  twenty-five 
to  thirty  years  before.  Lament  defects  as  we  may, 
the  General  Synod  saved  the  Church,  as  it  became 
anglicized,  from  the  calamity  of  the  type  of  doctrine 


OF    THE    GENERAL    SYNOD  4I 

which  within  the  New  York  Ministerium  had  been 
introduced  with  the  Enghsh  language.  It  had  an 
outlook  that  included  in  its  sweep  the  entire  Church 
in  all  its  interests,  as  the  reports  on  the  state  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  in  the  various  Synods  of  the 
country  and  throughout  the  world,  appended  to  its 
minutes,  show."* 

"The  impartial  historian  must  readily  concede 
that  the  General  Synod,  widi  great  courage  and  de- 
termination, undertook  to  give  a  standing  and  recog- 
nition to  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  such  as 
she  had  not  enjoyed  before ;  that  it  was  a  'holy  ex- 
periment, concentrating  the  resources  of  the  Church 
to  effect  purposes  to  which  no  individual  Synod 
would  have  been  competent,'  and  that  it  succeeded 
in  organizing  the  educational  and  missionary  work 
of  the  Church.  The  establishment  of  the  Theologi- 
cal Seminary;  the  sending  of  a  delegation  to  Ger- 
many to  rouse  the  sympathies  of  the  Fatherland, 
and  to  collect  contributions  for  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  America;  the  formation  of  the  Parent  Education 
Society  to  assist  indigent,  pious  young  men  in  their 
preparation  for  the  gospel  ministry;  the  Central 
Missionary  Society,  with  special  reference  to  do- 
mestic missions:  the  Foreign  Missionary  Society 
for  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  among  the  Telugus 
in  India ;  the  establishment  of  a  Pastors'  Fund ;  the 
attention  given  to  Church  literature  and  a  Book 
*  Jacobs'  History  of  the  Bv.  Luth.  Church,  361  f. 


42  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

Company — all  these  were  measures  of  the  highest 
importance,  looking  to  the  vital  interests  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  her  new  western  home."* 

The  confessional  history  of  the  General  Synod 
has  probably  never  been  fully  written  from  a  sym- 
pathetic and  yet  objective  standpoint.  It  may  be 
too  late  and  quite  needless  to  do  so  now;  at  all 
events  we  shall  not  here  undertake  the  task.  It 
must  be  a  matter  of  surprise  to  the  cursory  reader 
of  our  American  Lutheran  history  that  in  spite  of 
prevailing  confessional  laxity,  the  General  Synod 
found  the  paths  of  the  fathers  very  early  in  its 
career,  and  that,  as  a  body,  it  never  strayed  far 
from  these  paths. 

Let  us  consider  for  a  moment  the  confessional 
situation  in  our  Lutheran  Synods  at  the  time  of  the 
founding,  and  during  the  early  years  of  the  General 
Synod.  The  saintly  Muhlenberg  had,  in  a  measure, 
restored  the  faith  of  our  Church  and  incorporated 
into  the  original  constitution  of  the  Ministerium 
(1748)  a  recognition  of  the  Confessions.  "In  1787 
the  patriarch  was  called  to  his  rest,  and  in  1792  the 
Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  adopted  a  new  con- 
stitution, omitting  all  reference  to  the  Confession 
of  the  Lutheran  Church.  This  changed  constitu- 
tion formed  the  basis  of  that  adopted  by  the  Min- 
isterium of  New  York.  A  few  years  afterward 
in  the  latter  Synod  that  famous  resolution  was 
*  Spaeth's  Life  of  Krauth,  Vol.  I,  330. 


OF    THE    GENERAL    SYNOD  43 

passed:  *That  on  account  of  the  intimate  relation 
existing  between  the  EngHsh  Episcopahan  and 
Lutheran  Churches,  the  identity  of  their  doctrine, 
and  the  near  approach  of  their  Church  discipHne, 
this  consistory  will  never  acknowledge  a  newly 
erected  Church  in  places  where  the  members  may 
partake  of  the  services  of  the  said  English  Episco- 
pal Church.'"*  Dr.  Quitman,  President  of  the 
Ministerium  of  New  York  for  twenty-one  years, 
published  in  1814,  "with  the  consent  and  approba- 
tion of  the  Synod,"  a  catechism  w^hich  denied  the 
deity  of  Christ.  A  similar  catechism  had  been  pub- 
lished before  this  for  the  congregations  in  North 
Carolina  by  Dr.  Velthusen.  In  1794  the  Lutheran 
ministers  in  North  Carolina  ordained  a  Scotchman 
and  pledged  him  to  the  rules,  ordinances  and  cus- 
toms of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  "Under 
this  pledge  Mr.  Miller  was  pastor  of  Lutheran  con- 
gregations for  twenty-seven  years.  In  18 10  Gott- 
lieb Schober,  to  the  end  of  his  life  professing  to  be 
also  a  Moravian,  was  ordained  by  the  North  Caro- 
lina Synod. "t  As  late  as  1818  the  Ministerium  of 
Pennsylvania  was  negotiating  with  the  German  Re- 
formed Church  with  a  view  to  the  establishing  of  a 
joint  theological  seminary.  The  Ohio  Synod,  in 
1839,  "was  still  \yilling  to  unite  with  the  Reformed 

*  Spaeth's  Life  of  Krauth,  Vol.  I,  3i9- 
t Jacobs'  History,  319. 


44  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

Synod."*  Everywhere,  except  in  the  Httle  Synod  of 
Tennessee,  there  was  the  greatest  neglect  of  the 
Lutheran  Confession  and  the  most  hearty  union- 
ism. 

The  first  constitution  of  the  General  Synod  makes 
no  mention  of  the  Confessions  of  the  Lutheran 
Church.  This  is  not  surprising,  as  none  of  its  con- 
stituents did  so.  Nevertheless,  the  confessions  are 
certainly  alluded  to  by  implication  in  the  conditions 
laid  down  for  admission  to  the  General  Synod: 
*'A11  regularly  constituted  Lutheran  Synods,  hold- 
ing the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible  as  taught 
by  our  Church,  not  now  in  connection  with  the  Gen- 
eral Synod,  may,  at  any  time,  become  associated 
with  it  by  adopting  this  constitution,  and  sending 
delegates  to  its  convention  according  to  the  ratio 
specified.''    (Art.  Ill,  sec.  3.) 

At  the  establishment,  however,  of  the  Theological 
Seminary,  in  1825,  the  General  Synod  demanded 
of  the  professors  subscription  to  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  Luther's  Smaller  Catechism.  This  re- 
quirement was  introduced  by  Prof.  S.  S.  Schmucker, 
the  first  chairman  of  the  faculty,  and  for  nearly 
forty  years  a  teacher  in  the  Seminary.  When  Mr. 
Schmucker  was  barely  of  age,  such  was  the  clear- 
ness of  his  views,  that  he  expressed  the  conviction 
that  all  Lutheran  ministers  should  be  pledged  to  the 
Augustana.     In  a  letter  dated  "Princeton,  February 

*  Neve's  Brief  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  141. 


OF   THE   GENERAL   SYNOD  45 

17th,  1820,"  addressed  to  his  father,  in  giving  an  ac- 
count of  a  recent  visit  to  his  friend,  the  Rev.  F.  C. 
Schaeffer,  pastor  in  New  York  City,  he  writes: 
**We  promised  each  other  that  in  rehance  on  God, 
we  would  do  everything  possible  to  promote  the  fol- 
lowing objects:  In  general  to  labor  for  the  welfare 
of  our  Church,  that  a  rule  may  be  established,  ac- 
cording to  which  every  applicant  must  be  examined 
in  regard  to  his  personal  Christianity,  that  the 
Augsburg  Confession  should  again  be  brought  up 
out  of  the  dust,  and  everyone  must  subscribe  to  the 
twenty-one  articles,  and  declare  before  God,  by  his 
subscription,  that  it  corresponds  with  the  Bible,  not 
quantum,  but  quia;  and  we  promised  to  do  every- 
thing possible  to  promote  learning  among  us/'* 
For  many  years  Dr.  Schmucker  was  the  most  con- 
spicuous Lutheran  in  America,  and  the  Lutheran 
Church  owes  much  to  his  native  ability,  culture  and 
self-denying  and  efficient  work.  From  the  prelim- 
inary meeting  in  18 19  until  1870  he  was  present  as 
a  delegate  or  visitor  at  every  convention  of  the  Gen- 
eral Synod.  In  the  dark  days  of  1823,  when  the 
mother  Synod  failed  to  appear,  Schmucker's  influ- 
ence helped  to  save  the  General  Synod  from  dis- 
solution.f    It  is  with  regret  that  we  remember  that 

*  Anstadt's  Life  and  Times  of  Rev.  S.  S.  Schmucker,  D,  D., 
63. 
ilbid.  122  f. 


46  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND   USAGES 

his  convictions  in  regard  to  the  Augustana  seem  to 
have  grown  lax  with  advancing  years. 

In  1829  the  General  Synod  adopted  a  form  of 
constitution  for  the  government  of  district  Synods, 
in  which  candidates  for  ordination  were  asked  the 
following  question :  "Do  you  believe  that  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  the  Word  of  God  are  taught 
in  a  manner  substantially  correct  in  the  doctrinal 
articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession?"  The  consti- 
tution was  framed  by  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker. 

As  far  as  we  know  this  quasi  recognition  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  was  acceptable  to  all  con- 
cerned, but  for  binding  force  it  falls  far  behind  the 
obligation  required  of  the  professors  in  the  Semi- 
nary. The  words  "substantially  correct"  connote 
a  mere  qiiateniis  subscription,  and  left  the  way  open 
for  the  most  latitudinarian  interpretations.  The 
time  for  a  clear  apprehension  and  full  appreciation 
of  the  confessions  had  not  arrived.  This  is  appa- 
rent in  an  article  published  in  the  Evangelical  Re- 
view as  late  as  October,  1853,  written  by  one  of  the 
editors,  either  Dr.  Krauth,  Sr.,  or  Dr.  Reynolds — 
probably  the  latter,  for  he  was  present  at  the  con- 
vention of  1839,  to  which  the  article  refers: 

"The  feeling  seemed  to  prevail  [in  1839]  that  it 
was  not  the  province  of  the  General  Synod  to  estab- 
lish any  theological  basis,  or  to  propose  any  test  of 
Lutheran  orthodoxy :  that  it  was  merely  an  advisory 
council  of  the  Church,  and  that  however  men  might 


OF    THE    GENERAL    SYNOD  47 

differ  upon  points  that  were  regarded  as  non-essen- 
tial, they  could  still  meet  together  in  this  General 
Convention  to  deliberate  on  the  means  best  calcu- 
lated to  promote  the  general  interest  of  the  Church. 
It  is  not  the  business  of  the  General  Synod  to  in- 
quire in  reference  to  any  Synod  applying  for  its  ad- 
mission into  its  connection  whether  it  gives  only  a 
qualified  assent  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  or 
whether  it  subscribes  to  every  sentiment  contained 
in  the  Symbolical  Books.  From  the  very  beginning 
it  was  understood  that  no  such  touchstone  should  be 
applied.  We  have  no  sympathy  with  that  illiberal, 
exclusive  spirit  manifested  in  some  quarters.  We 
look  with  no  favor  upon  proscriptive  intolerance, 
whether  found  in  those  who  represent  what  is  called 
the  Old  Lutheran  System,  or  those  who  question  the 
orthodoxy  of  all  who  do  not  chime  in  with  their 
doctrinal  views,  or  subscribe  to  their  theological 
basis."* 

The  year  1853  marks  an  era  in  the  history  of  the 
General  Synod,  and  gives  a  fair  idea  of  the  situa- 
tion of  the  Lutheran  Church  from  a  confessional 
standpoint.  At  the  convention  held  in  May,  at 
Winchester,  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania  returned  to 
the  General  Synod,  and  three  other  Synods  were  ad- 
mitted. "Although  there  was  not  much  business 
transacted  at  this  meeting,  yet  all  the  delegates  in 
attendance  seemed  to  feel  that  its  influence  upon  the 
*  Bvangelical  Review,  Vol.  V,  260. 


48  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

Church  would  be  salutary.    The  kindest  feeling  and 
the  greatest  harmony  prevailed."* 

The  confessional  position  of  the  General  Synod, 
therefore,  was  not  called  in  question  by  any  of  its 
constituents.  Evidently  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania 
was  satisfied  therewith,  or  it  would  not  have  re- 
united w^ith  the  General  Synod.  At  the  meeting  of 
the  latter  body,  held  in  April,  1853,  at  Lancaster, 
Pa.,  Dr.  C.  F.  Schaeffer  presented  a  report  on  'The 
Confession  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church," 
which  concluded  with  the  resolution:  'That  when 
this  Synod  employs  the  phrase  'Confession  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,'  it  employs  it  in  such 
a  sense  as  to  correspond  to  the  uniform  usage  of 
the  Church,  namely,  implying  that  the  doctrinal 
system  of  the  Church  is  that  system,  whole  and  en- 
tire, which  is  taught  in  (i)  the  three  ancient  or 
Ecumenical  Symbols;  (2)  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion; (3)  the  Apology;  (4)  the  Smalcald  Articles; 
(5)  the  Large  and  the  Small  Catechisms,  and  (6) 
the  Formula  of  Concord."  Dr.  Schaeffer,  in  com- 
menting on  this  matter,  says :  'The  Synod  declined  to 
adopt  it  in  this  form,  as  several  members  entertained 
an  apprehension  that  the  consciences  of  some  might 
feel  oppressed  by  a  formal  recognition  of  its  terms, 
without  any  further  explanations  and  relaxations." 

Listead    of    the    above    resolution    the    Synod 
adopted  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions : 
*  Evangelical  Review,  Vol.  V,  278. 


OF    THE    GENERAL    SYNOD  49 

"Whereas,  (i)  The  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  has  of 
late  arrived  at  clearer  views  of  its  doctrinal  and  other  dis- 
tinctive features,  and,  whereas  (2)  we  are  justified  in  ex- 
pecting that  both  the  internal  and  the  external  welfare  of  our 
Church  will  be  thereby  essentially  promoted,  and,  whereas  (3) 
we  recognize  the  importance  of  a  historical  and  confessional 
basis  for  the  Church ;  therefore, 

"i.  Resolved,  That  we  also  with  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church  of  our  fathers,  acknowledge  the  collective  body  of  the 
Symbolical  Books,  as  the  historical  and  confessional  writings 
of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  and  that  we  also,  like 
the  Lutheran  Church  of  former  times,  accord  to  the  unal- 
tered Augsburg  Confession  and  Luther's  Small  Catechism  an 
especial  importance  among  our  Symbolical  Books  generally. 

"2.  Resolved,  That  we  enjoin  it  upon  all  the  ministers  and 
candidates  of  our  Church,  as  their  duty,  to  make  themselves 
better  and  more  thoroughly  acquainted  with  these  venerable 
documents  of  the  faith  of  our  fathers  than  has  hitherto  been 
the  case  with  many. 

"3.  Resolved.  That  it  is  not  by  any  means  our  intention 
hereby  to  diminish  the  absolute  authority  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, but  much  rather  to  place  it  in  the  clearest  light  possible, 
and  that  we  by  no  means  design  through  these  symbols  to 
place  constraint  upon  the  consciences  of  any,  but  much 
rather  through  them  to  bind  the  conscience  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures   as   the    divine    source   of   truth." 

Concerning  these  resolutions,  Dr.  Schaeffer  re- 
marks :  ''Some  may  possibly  regard  them  as  quite 
stringent,  others  may  find  them  a  somewhat  weak 
infusion,  it  is  true,  but  still,  perhaps,  best  suited  to 
a  state  of  convalescence,  and  a  flattering  indication 
that  the  Apostle's  'strong  meat'  can  soon  be  safely 
substituted    for  'milk.'  "* 

*Ev.  Rev.,  Vol.  V,  212  f. 


50  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

In  its  application  for  readmission  into  the  Gen- 
eral Synod,  in  i<S53,  the  Ministerium  placed  on 
record :  ( i )  The  approval  "of  the  principles  laid 
down  in  its  constitution  for  the  government"  of 
the  several  district  Synods;  (2)  the  opinion  that  the 
General  Synod  was  ''entertaining  the  same  views 
of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel  as  those 
set  forth  in  the  Confessional  writings  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Church,  and  especially  in  the  Unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession,"  and  that  the  General  Synod 
was  bound  by  its  own  constitution  not  to  make  any 
innovations  or  alterations  of  this  faith;  (3)  the 
claim  that  the  Ministerium  retained  the  right  to 
control  its  internal  affairs  as  heretofore;  (4)  the 
right  to  demand  of  its  delegates  their  protest  and 
withdraw^al  from  the  General  Synod  in  order  to  re- 
port to  the  Ministerium,  in  case  the  General  Synod 
should  violate  its  constitution  and  require  assent  to 
anything  conflicting  with  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church;  (5)  an  appeal  to  other  Lutheran  bodies  to 
unite  with  the  General  Synod. 

There  was  apparently  no  objection  whatever  to 
these  conditions  of  membership,  for  they  accorded 
with  the  position  of  the  General  Synod.  Yet  the  re- 
turn of  the  Ministerium  with  its  lately  awakened 
Lutheran  consciousness  no  doubt  precipitated  the 
publication  of  the  ''Definite  Platform"  of  Dr.  S.  S. 
Schmucker  (1855),  w^hich  was  a  protest  against  an 
evidently  increasing  valuation  of  the  Confessions. 


OF    TKE    GENERAL    SYNOD  5I 

The  "Definite  Platform"  was  essentially  an  at- 
tempted revision  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
which,  it  was  alleged,  contained  at  least  five  errors, 
namely,  the  approval  of  the  ceremonies  of  the  mass, 
private  confession  and  absolution,  denial  of  a  divine 
obligation  of  a  Christian  Sabbath,  baptismal  re- 
generation, and  the  real  presence  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Saviour  in  the  eucharist.  The  plat- 
form, was  offered  in  denial  of  these  errors  and  as 
a  more  specific  expression  of  the  General  Synod's 
doctrinal  basis,  being  "surrounded  by  German 
Churches  which  profess  the  entire  mass  of  former 
symbols."  Copies  of  this  platform  were  sent  to  the 
district  Synods  with  the  suggestion  that  it  be  en- 
dorsed by  them  with  the  resolution  "that  we  will 
not  receive  into  our  Synod  any  minister  who  will 
not  adopt  this  platform." 

With  the  exception  of  a  few  small  Synods,  the 
district  Synods  of  the  General  Synod  emphatically 
repudiated  the  platform.  At  the  meeting  of  the 
East  Pennsylvania  Synod,  in  the  fall  of  1855,  the 
Rev.  J.  A.  Brown,  who  became  in  1864  I^^- 
Schmucker's  successor  as  head  of  the  Seminary, 
offered  a  resolution  expressing  "unqualified  disap- 
probation of  this  most  dangerous  attempt  to  change 
the  doctrinal  basis  and  revolutionize  the  existing 
character  of  the  Lutheran  Churches  now  united  in 
the  General  Synod,"  and  solemnly  warning  "sister 
Synods  against  this  dangerous  proposition." 


52  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

The  Pittsburgh  Synod,  at  its  meeting  in  Zelieno- 
ple,  Pa.  (May  27th,  1856),  in  deahng  with  the 
"Definite  Platform,"  adopted  the  following  resolu- 
lution,  prepared  by  C.  P.  Krauth,  Jr. : 

''Resolved,  That  while  this  Synod,  resting  on  the  word  of 
God  as  the  sole  authority  in  matters  of  faith  on  its  infalhble 
warrant,  rejects  the  Romish  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  or 
transubstantiation,  and  with  it  the  doctrine  of  consubstantia- 
tion;  rejects  the  Romish  mass  and  all  the  ceremonies  dis- 
tinctive of  the  mass ;  denies  any  power  in  the  sacraments,  as  an 
opus  operatum,  or  that  the  blessings  of  baptism  and  the  I^ord's 
Supper  can  be  received  without  faith;  rejects  auricular  con- 
fession and  priestly  absolution;  holds  that  there  is  no  priest- 
hood on  earth,  but  that  of  all  believers,  and  that  God  only 
can  forgive  sins;  and  maintains  the  divine  obligation  of  the 
Sabbath.  And  while  we  would,  with  our  whole  heart,  reject 
any  part  of  any  confession  which  taught  doctrines  in  conflict 
with  this,  our  testimony,  nevertheless,  before  God  and  His 
Church,  we  declare  that  in  our  judgment  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, properly  interpreted,  is  in  perfect  consistence  with 
this  our  testimony  and  with  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  regards 
the  errors  specified." 

This  identical  resolution  was  offered  to  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  and  adopted  by  it  at  York  in  May,  1864. 

The  episode  of  the  "Definite  Platform'^  is  here 
mentioned  because  the  facts  have  often  been  so  mis- 
represented or  misunderstood  as  to  cast  reflections 
upon  the  orthodoxy  of  the  General  Synod.  No 
incident  could  have  more  forcibly  emphasized  its 
real  conservatism.  That  Dr.  Schmucker,  the  head 
of  the  Seminary,  supported  by  Dr.  Kurtz,  the  editor 
of  the  Lutheran  Observer,  and  Dr.  Sprecher,  Presi- 


OF    THE    GENERAL    SYNOD  53 

dent  of  Wittenberg  College,  was  not  able  through 
the  "Definite  Platform"  to  loosen  the  General  Synod 
from  its  moorings  is  remarkable.  The  former  two 
retained  their  convictions  to  the  end;  the  last  ac- 
knowledged that  he  w^as  mistaken  when  he  "once 
thought  that  a  Lutheranism,  modified  by  the  Puri- 
tan element,  was  desirable."  "I  can  now  say,"  wrote 
Dr.  Sprecher,  late  in  life,  "as  I  could  not  formerly, 
that  like  Spener,  I  can  for  myself  accept  the  symbols 
of  the  Church  without  reserve."* 

That  the  "Definite  Platform"  caused  the  reces- 
sion of  the  Ministerium  some  years  later  seems  quite 
improbable,  for  the  chief  promoter  of  the  General 
Council,  the  Rev.  C.  P.  Krauth,  Jr.,  was  at  this  time 
an  ardent  defender  of  the  General  Synod.  He  made 
apologies  for  his  old  teacher,  and  probably  pre- 
vented his  impeachment  by  the  Seminary  Board 
when  it  was  urged  by  the  Rev.  J.  A.  Brown.  The 
"Definite  Platform"  was  rather  a  symptom  of  un- 
rest, created  chiefly  by  the  growing  apprehension 
of  our  rich  confessional  heritage,  and  incidentally 
aggravated  by  racial  misunderstandings  and  the 
friction  of  strong  personalities. 

There  is  a  striking  parallelism  between  national 
and  ecclesiastical  movements.  The  Civil  War  had 
its  counterpart  in  Church  dissensions.  The  human 
spirit  in  both  cases  shows  great  sensitiveness  and 
combativeness.     Party  feeling  ran  high. 

♦Neve's  Brief  History,  p.  62;  Jacobs'  History,  369. 


54  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

When  the  General  Synod  met  in  York,  in  May, 
1864,  various  events  on  the  surface  and  forebodings 
beneath  it,  prompted  it  to  fortify  its  position  as  a 
conservative  Lutheran  body  by  providing  for  the 
amendment  of  its  constitution,  and  by  adopting  the 
resolution  quoted  above,  as  well  as  by  taking  the  fol- 
lowing action :  ^'Resolved,  That  this  General  Synod 
most  unqualifiedly  reprobates  and  condemns  the 
course  so  frequently  pursued  of  denouncing  each 
other  as  cold  formalists  on  the  one  hand,  and  on 
the  other  as  traitors  to  the  Lutheran  Church." 
But  in  spite  of  all  this  it  could  not  allay  dis- 
sension. 

The  delegates  of  the  Ministerium  were  offended 
at  what  they  believed  to  be  the  irregular  admission 
of  the  Franckean  Synod,  and  withdrew  in  order  to 
report  to  the  Ministerium.  The  die  was  cast.  There 
was  later  on  some  parliamentary  sparring,  but  the 
.separation  came  really  in  1864.  A  few  days  after 
the  adjournment  of  the  General  Synod,  the  Minis- 
terium, at  its  meeting  in  Pottstown,  Pa.  (May  25th, 
1864),  resolved,  "That  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
we  now  undertake  the  establishment  of  a  theolog- 
ical seminary."  At  a  special  meeting  in  Allentown 
(July  26th  and  27th)  the  Ministerium  founded  the 
new  Seminary  which  was  to  be  located  in  Philadel- 
phia. In  August,  Dr.  J.  A.  Brown  was  elected  to 
succeed  Dr.  Schmucker  at  Gettysburg.  These  events 
are  mentioned  in  their  chronological  order  for  their 


OF    THE    GENERAL    SYNOD  55 

bearing  on  the  confessional  history  of  the  General 
Synod. 

The  withdrawal  of  the  Ministerium,  the  founding 
a  new  Theological  Seminary  at  Philadelphia,  and  the 
organization  of  the  General  Council,  were  largely 
influenced,  if  not  conditioned,  by  a  single  event — the 
choice  of  Dr.  Schmucker's  successor.  "If  the  chair 
at  Gettysburg,''  says  Dr.  Jacobs,  "vacated  by  the 
resignation  of  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker,  had  been  filled 
by  his  [Dr.  Charles  Porterfield  Krauth's]  election, 
the  Ministerium  would  in  all  probability  have  felt 
that  his  presence  was  a  guarantee  that  the  future 
ministers  would  be  furnished  with  the  necessary 
defences  against  all  radical  tendencies.  When  the 
election  resulted  differently,  it  was  no  antipathy  to 
the  professor-elect,  who  had  done  good  service  in 
the  battle  against  the  'Definite  Platform,'  that 
turned  the  sentiment  of  a  large  portion  of  those 
who  had  hitherto  been  averse  to  another  seminary, 
toward  the  prompt  execution  of  a  project  proposed 
but  not  acted  upon  at  the  regular  sessions  of  the 
Ministerium,  and  the  enlargement  of  its  scope  be- 
yond that  of  a  seminary  for  German  pastors."  * 

There  is  a  slight  chronological  inaccuracy  in  this 
statement.  As  shown  above,  the  new  seminary  was 
organized  and  the  professors  chosen  before  the  elec- 
tion of  Dr.  Brown,  which,  however,  must  have  been 
anticipated.  It  was  Dr.  Brown's  opinion,  fre- 
*  Jacobs'  History,  462. 


56  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

quently  expressed  to  the  writer,  that  the  failure  of 
the  efforts  to  make  Dr.  C.  P.  Krauth,  Jr.,  the  head 
of  the  Gettysburg  Seminary  was  the  real  occasion 
of  the  creation  of  the  General  Council. 

That  the  election  of  Dr.  Brown  justified  the 
founding  of  a  new  seminary,  in  the  same  State,  does 
not  seem  apparent,  in  view  of  his  sound  confes- 
sional position.  When  Dr.  Schmucker  resigned 
there  remained  his  colleagues,  both  stanch  con- 
servatives— Dr.  Charles  Philip  Krauth,  the  father 
of  Charles  Porterfield  Krauth,  and  Dr.  Charles  F. 
Schaeffer,  who  at  once  accepted  a  call  to  the  new 
seminary.  These  two,  with  Dr.  Brown,  could  surely 
have  been  safely  entrusted  with  the  training  of  the 
future  ministers. 

The  amendment  proposed  at  York,  in  1864,  ^^^ 
submitted  to  the  vote  of  the  district  Synods,  was 
ratified  by  a  large  majority  of  these  Synods,  includ- 
ing the  Ministerium,  and  was  formally  declared 
adopted  in  1866  at  Fort  Wayne.  It  reads  as  fol- 
lows: 

"All  regularly  constituted  Lutheran  Synods,  not  now  in 
connection  with  the  General  Synod,  receiving  and  holding  with 
the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  of  our  fathers  the  word 
of  God  as  contained  in  the  canonical  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  and  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  correct  exhibition 
of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Divine  Word,  and  of  the 
faith  of  our  Church,  founded  upon  that  Word,  may  at  any 
time  become  associated  with  the  General  Synod  by  adopting 


OF    THE    GENERAL    SYNOD  57 

this  constitution  and  sending  delegates  to  its  convention,  ac- 
cording to  the  ratio  specified  in  section  first  of  this  article." 

The  doctrinal  basis,  as  amended  in  1866,  re- 
mained unchanged  for  nearly  fifty  years.  Various 
deliverances  made  at  the  conventions  of  the  General 
Synod  during  this  period  repudiate  false  charges 
and  affirm  the  Lutheran  character  and  confessional 
fidelity  of  the  body.  These  statements  finally  be- 
came so  voluminous,  that  the  General  Synod,  in  con- 
vention at  Richmond,  Ind.,  in  1909,  entrusted  a 
committee  v^dth  the  work  of  incorporating  the  sub- 
stance of  these  deliverances  "into  one  clear  and  defi- 
nite statement  of  our  doctrinal  basis,  and  to  report 
the  same  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  General  Synod 
with  a  view  to  placing  it  in  the  constitution,  .  .  . 
there  being  no  intention  in  this  action  in  any  way  to 
change  our  present  doctrinal  basis."  The  commit- 
tee made  its  report  in  191 1,  at  Washington,  and 
the  amendments  were  duly  submitted  to  the  twenty- 
four  district  Synods,  all  of  which  approved  them. 
They  were,  therefore,  declared  adopted  at  the  con- 
vention held  at  Atchison,  Kan.,  in  191 3.  They  are 
as  follows : 

ARTICLE  11 

DOCTRINAL    BASIS 

"With  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  of  the  fathers,  the 
General  Synod  receives  and  holds  the  canonical  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as  the  Word  of  God,  and  the 
only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice;  and  it  receives  and 


58  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

holds  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  correct  exhibi- 
tion of  the  faith  and  doctrine  of  our  Church  as  founded  upon 
that  Word." 


ARTICLE  III 

SECONDARY  SYMBGI^S 

"While  the  General  Synod  regards  the  Augsburg  Confession 
as  a  sufficient  and  altogether  adequate  doctrinal  basis  for  the 
co-operation  of  Lutheran  Synods,  it  also  recognizes  the 
Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Smalkald  Articles, 
the  Small  Catechism  of  Luther,  the  Large  Catechism  of 
Luther  and  the  Formula  of  Concord  as  expositions  of  Luth- 
eran doctrine  of  great  historical  and  interpretative  value, 
and  especially  commends  the  Small  Catechism  as  a  book  of 
instruction." 

The  doctrinal  basis,  as  it  now  exists,  means  to 
the  members  of  the  General  Synod  exactly  what  it 
meant  before  its  verbal  amendment.  For  a  genera- 
tion it  has  been  interpreted  to  mean  an  unequivocal 
subscription  to  the  Augsburg  Confession.  The  ad- 
dition of  the  word  "unaltered"  indicates  no  change 
in  conviction  or  in  fact,  for  the  General  Synod  has 
never  known  any  other  than  the  Unaltered  Augs- 
burg Confession.  The  addition  was  made  to  silence 
misrepresentation  and  to  avoid  misunderstanding. 
Other  verbal  changes  were  made  for  the  sake  of 
clearness. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  subscription  to 
the  Augustana  is  unequivocal.  There  are  no  reser- 
vations as  to  the  acceptance  of  the  doctrines  taught 


OF   THE   GENERAL    SYNOD  59 

therein.  Taking  a  firm  stand  upon  the  Scriptures 
as  the  Word  of  God  and  the  only  infaUible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  the  General  Synod  receives  and 
holds  the  Unaltered  Augustana  as  correctly  setting 
forth  the  inner  faith  and  the  objective  doctrine  of 
our  Church,  which  is  founded  upon  the  Word.  It 
confesses  that  the  Augustana  is  a  true  exhibition  of 
Biblical  doctrine. 

In  its  recognition  of  the  Secondary  Symbols,  as 
"of  great  historical  and  interpretative  value,"  the 
General  Synod  acknowledges  that  questions  have 
arisen,  and  may  still  arise,  which  are  not  touched 
upon  by  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  hence  it 
places  no  barriers  in  the  way  of  the  development 
of  doctrine  in  harmony  with  the  genius  of  the  Con- 
fession. Its  theologians  have  always  quoted  from 
these  symbols.  Indeed,  it  is  quite  unthinkable  that 
a  Lutheran  dogmatic  could  be  constructed  without 
their  aid. 

The  General  Synod,  however,  does  not  require 
subscription  to  the  Secondary  Symbols  as  a  condi- 
tion of  membership  in  that  body.  Their  formal 
acceptance  is  a  matter  of  liberty  with  the  individual 
Synod.  If,  in  the  judgment  of  a  district  Synod, 
it  is  considered  wise  to  demand  of  its  ministers  sub- 
scription to  these  symbols,  the  General  Synod  inter- 
poses no  objections.  The  Unaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, however,  is  considered  an  ample  basis  for 
the  co-operation  of  Synods.     It  is  the  simplest  and 


6o  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

Strongest  platform  of  union.  A  hearty  reception 
of  its  teachings  makes  a  man  a  true  Lutheran. 

Of  course,  every  Lutheran  loves  the  Small  Cate- 
chism. A  church  which  has  no  place  for  it  would 
hardly  merit  the  name  Lutheran. 

The  bone  of  contention  among  Lutherans  has 
been  the  Form  of  Concord,  which  we  personally 
rate  very  high,  and  whose  teachings  we  gladly  ac- 
cept. But  it  is  too  well  known  to  need  proof  here 
that  it  has  never  been  universally  received  in  Europe 
or  in  America.  Its  rejection  at  first  was  the  result, 
at  least  in  part,  of  politics,  of  prejudice,  or  of  mis- 
understanding. These  various  attitudes  are  still 
maintained  to  some  extent,  especially  by  many  who 
have  not  thought  it  worth  while  to  make  an  inde- 
pendent study  of  it. 

Moreover,  the  Form  of  Concord,  without  men- 
tioning the  other  secondary  symbols,  is  too  exten- 
sive a  statement  to  be  accepted  as  a  creed.  Where 
its  subscription  is  demanded  we  fear  that  its  en- 
dorsement is  in  many  cases  not  very  hearty  or  in- 
telligent. At  all  events,  the  General  Synod  believes 
that  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  not  only  an  all- 
sufficient  basis  for  co-operation,  but  also  that  it  is 
the  only  feasible  ground  of  one  great,  united  Luth- 
eran Church. 

The  General  Synod  has  wisely  refrained  from 
making  minute  theological  distinctions,  and  has 
thus  obviated  much  useless  discussion.    Apart  from 


OF    THE    GENERAL    SYNOD  6l 

the  several  actions  already  alluded  to,  it  has  made 
few  special  doctrinal  deliverances.  The  simple 
''doctrinal  basis,"  as  it  now  stands,  is  believed  to  be 
broad  enough  to  embrace  what  is  essential  to  the 
platform,  of  a  general  body,  and  guarded  enough  to 
exclude  laxity  in  faith  and  practice. 

The  General  Synod  has  not  found  any  occasion 
for  special  action  concerning  Chiliasm.  Neither  has 
it  entered  upon  a  discussion  of  election,  believing 
itself  to  be  thoroughly  Lutheran  and  Christian  on 
this  matter.  It  heartily  accepts  the  Pauline  doctrine 
that  the  believer  is  justified  without  the  deeds  of  the 
law,  and  without  the  least  merit  on  his  part,  or  the 
smallest  meritorious  co-operation,  relying  solely  upon 
grace  apprehended  by  faith,  which  is  the  gift  of  God. 

If  the  title  of  this  volume,  so  far  as  it  pertains 
to  "Distinctive  Doctrines,"  carries  with  it  the  sug- 
gestion that  there  are  great,  fundamental  differences 
of  doctrine  in  the  several  branches  of  the  American 
Lutheran  Church,  we  believe  it  to  be  a  misnomer. 
For,  as  far  as  we  are  able  to  see,  there  is  an  essential 
agreement  among  all  Lutheran  bodies  on  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  Christianity  as  taught  in  the 
Bible  and  set  forth  in  the  Lutheran  Confessions. 
While  there  are  individuals  in  all  the  different  Syn- 
ods who  are  erratic  in  their  beliefs  and  practices,  a 
body  is  not  to  be  judged  by  the  opinion  or  the  actions 
of  one  individual  or  of  small  groups,  but  by  its  own 
authoritative  deliverances. 


62  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

Concerning  ^'Usages,"  it  may  be  said  that  the 
General  Synod  conforms  to  the  Lutheran  type  of 
Christian  worship  and  work.  While  it  accepts  the 
principles  enunciated  in  the  Augustana,  that  abso- 
lute imiformity  in  rites  and  ceremonies  instituted  by 
men  is  not  necessary  to  the  unity  of  the  Church,  it 
believes  that  a  voluntary  uniformity  in  the  use  of 
forms  of  worship  promotes  the  unity  and  the  edifica- 
tion of  the  Church.  And  as  these  forms  of  worship 
express  the  Lutheran  view  of  certain  doctrines,  and 
embody  the  Lutheran  "consciousness"  as  well  as 
promote  good  order  and  dignity  in  the  service  of 
the  house  of  God,  the  General  Synod  commends  the 
use  of  fixed  forms  as  long  as  they  serve  to  edifica- 
tion. 

Our  congregations,  almost  without  exception,  use 
some  form  of  worship  authorized  by  the  General 
Synod.  The  Common  Service,  in  whose  prepara- 
tion the  General  Synod  co-operated  with  the  Gen- 
eral Council  and  with  the  United  Synod  of  the 
South,  has  been  adopted  by  the  great  majority  of 
its  leading  congregations,  and  is  regarded  with 
favor  generally.  The  use  of  vestments  is  optional. 
In  many  of  the  churches  of  the  larger  towns  and 
cities,  the  minister  wears  the  clerical  gown. 

Preaching  is  evangelical  in  content;  and  in  form 
it  follows  the  ways  of  the  fathers.  It  has  not  de- 
generated on  the  one  hand  into  mere  entertainment, 
nor,  on  the  other,  into  a  propaganda  of  social  re- 


OF    THE    GENERAL    SYNOD  63 

forms  and  other  fads.  Comparatively  little  that  is 
sensational  or  erratic  is  heard  from  our  pulpits. 

A  Sunday  School  is  connected  with  practically 
every  congregation,  and  is  conducted  in  the  usual 
way.  The  International  Series  of  Lessons  is  com- 
monly used ;  but  steps  are  being  taken  to  unite  with 
"other  Lutheran  bodies  in  the  preparation  of  a 
common  Lutheran  series  of  Sunday  School  lessons." 
It  is  quite  likely  that  such  a  series  will  gradually  win 
its  way  into  common  favor. 

Catechisation  is  universally  practiced.  Its  omis- 
sion, in  the  instruction  of  children  and  of  uncon- 
firmed adults  applying  for  admission  into  the 
Church,  would  be  regarded  as  a  sign  of  spiritual 
decay,  as  well  as  a  serious  departure  from  Lutheran 
traditions. 

The  Churches  of  the  General  Synod  have  also 
subsidiary  organizations,  such  as  Young  People's 
Societies  of  various  kinds,  Brotherhoods  for  the 
older  men,  Children's  Bands  and  the  Woman's 
Home  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society.  The  last 
named  society  has  been  an  extraordinarily  active  and 
useful  auxiliary  to  the  several  Mission  Boards,  hav- 
ing during  the  less  than  forty  years  of  its  existence 
raised  a  million  dollars  for  missions,  and  is  contrib- 
uting now  over  sixty  thousand  dollars  annually  to- 
ward this  end.  The  Laymen's  Missionary  Move- 
ment is  also  doing  excellent  service. 

The  General  Synod  maintains  about  two  hundred 


64  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

and  fifty  missions  in  the  home  field,  and  sustains  im- 
portant mission  stations  in  Africa  and  India.  In  the 
Republic  of  Liberia  it  has  established  and  main- 
tained an  educational  and  industrial  mission,  in 
which  a  truly  apostolic  spirit  of  devotion  until  death 
has  been  shown  by  its  missionaries.  Hundreds  of 
boys  and  girls  have  been  taught  in  its  schools  and 
shops  and  sent  forth  as  a  leaven  of  the  gospel  in  the 
Dark  Continent.  The  work  in  India  has  attained 
considerable  dimensions,  the  number  of  baptized 
members  having  reached  forty  thousand.  The 
equipment  of  this  mission  is  excellent,  including 
hospitals,  orphanages,  industrial  plants,  a  fine  col- 
lege, a  theological  seminary  and  numerous  minor 
schools. 

vSome  practical  questions  which  have  at  times 
perplexed  other  general  bodies  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  America,  and  have  called  forth  special 
deliverances,  have  not  been  formally  dealt  with  by 
the  General  Synod,  although  some  of  them  have 
been  by  district  Synods. 

Though  there  is  no  doubt  in  some  sections  of  the 
General  Synod  a  strong  sentiment  against  secret 
orders,  it  has  never  legislated  upon  the  subject,  pre- 
ferring to  leave  the  matter  to  the  conscience  of  the 
individual  and  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  district 
Synods. 

The  questions  of  pulpit  and  altar  fellowship  are 
also  left  to  the  decision  of  the  individual  pastor  and 


OF    THE    GENERAL    SYNOD  65 

congregation,  or  to  the  determination  of  the  district 
Synods.  As  a  fact,  such  fellowship  is  generally 
recognized  as  right  in  principle,  while  in  practice 
it  is  by  no  means  common.  The  exchange  of  pulpits 
and  the  invitation  of  non-Lutheran  Christians  to 
the  Lord's  table  could  be  abandoned  entirely  with- 
out seriously  affecting  our  customs  or  our  faith, 
were  it  not  that  such  a  course  would  be  regarded  as 
an  evidence  of  exclusiveness,  and  would  be  inter- 
preted as  a  breach  of  fellowship  with  the  Church 
universal. 

No  true  Lutheran  would  deny  that  there  are 
Christians  in  all  denominations,  though  they  may 
never  have  heard  the  name  of  Luther.  And  there  are 
numerous  faithful  and  orthodox  ministers  in  other 
churches,  who  are  known  for  their  piety  and  their 
efficiency.  There  are  also  great  missionaries  in 
other  denominations  who  have  inspiring  m.essages 
for  Christendom.  There  are  noble,  learned  men 
who  are  recognized  as  defenders  of  our  common 
faith  against  the  assaults  of  infidelity.  There  is 
scarcely  a  Lutheran  periodical,  published  by  any  of 
our  general  bodies,  which  does  not  contain  entire 
columns  of  wholesome  matter  from  the  pens  of 
non-Lutherans.  The  General  Synod  does  not  object 
when  such  men,  with  proper  discrimination,  are  in- 
vited to  address  our  people  from  the  pulpit. 

The  invitation  to  non-IvUtherans  to  the  Holy 
Communion  is  not  intended  for  members  of  neigh- 

5 


66  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

boring  churches,  but  for  the  stranger  who  may  be 
on  a  journey,  or  for  a  visitor  to  one  of  the  families 
of  the  congregation,  it  being  always  stated  or  un- 
derstood that  such  an  one  is  in  good  standing  in  his 
own  church.  In  some  of  our  churches  it  is  ex- 
pected that  such  a  communicant  be  present  at  the 
preparatory  service.  The  intention  of  this  altar 
fellowship  is  the  extension  of  the  means  of  grace 
to  those  who  are  away  from  home. 

Acting  on  the  principle  of  evangelical  comity,  the 
General  Synod  has  always  maintained  friendly  re- 
lations w^ith  other  religious  bodies,  especially  with 
such  as  most  nearly  approach  it  in  practice  and 
polity.  From  the  beginning  of  its  history  it  has  ex- 
changed fraternal  delegates  with  the  Reformed  and 
the  Presbyterian  bodies,  and  has  recognized  the 
presence  at  its  conventions  of  visiting  clergymen  of 
all  evangelical  denominations  which  extend  similar 
courtesies.  These  practices  are  not  to  be  construed 
as  ''unionistic"  in  the  offensive  sense  of  that  term, 
but  as  an  acknowledgment  that  the  Good  Shepherd 
has  other  sheep  which  are  not  of  our  fold.  We  are 
stimulated  by  their  devotion  to  our  common  Master, 
and  rejoice  in  any  triumphs  which  they  may  win  for 
Him. 

Allied  to  the  interchange  of  delegates  is  the  par- 
ticipation of  the  General  Synod  in  movements 
whose  object  is  the  world-wide  spread  of  the  gospel, 
the  better  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day,  the  sup- 


OF    THE    GENERAL    SYNOD  67 

pression  of  intemperance  and  other  vices,  and  the 
general  improvement  of  pubHc  morals.  The  Gen- 
eral Synod  feels  an  interest  also  in  such  organiza- 
tions as  the  American  Bible  Society,  the  Tract  So- 
ciety and  the  Sunday  School  Union.  It  has  been 
represented  in  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  whose 
founding  was  promoted  by  Rev.  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker, 
and  in  kindred  organizations. 

In  all  these  forms  of  Christian  effort  and  activity, 
the  General  Synod  sees  the  possibility  of  a  larger 
work  than  it  alone  can  do.  In  every  case  there  is  the 
understanding  that  the  General  Synod  does  not  yield 
its  conception  of  truth.  Should  it  at  any  time  ap- 
pear that  its  co-operation  can  justly  be  construed  as 
a  compromise  in  things  essential,  it  would  without 
doubt  withdraw  from  such  associations. 

The  General  Synod,  however,  is  more  anxious  to 
cultivate  first  of  all  a  fraternal  feeling  in  its  own 
household  of  faith,  and  is  in  hearty  sympathy  with 
all  movements  which  contemplate  the  unification  of 
the  great  Lutheran  Church  of  America.  It  longs 
for  the  day  when  the  original  purpose  of  its  organi- 
zation shall  have  its  fulfillment  in  the  Federation  of 
the  Churches  of  the  Lutheran  Reformation.  To 
this  end  its  official  or  personal  representatives  cor- 
dially unite  with  Lutheran  brethren  of  all  Synods  in 
conferences  for  the  consideration  of  problems  of 
common  interest. 

A  very  great  deal  has  already  been  accomplished 


68  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

through  the  Joint  Committee  of  the  General  Synod, 
the  General  Council  and  the  United  Synod  of  the 
South  in  the  preparation  of  the  Common  Service, 
and  of  the  English  hymnal,  as  well  as  of  a  transla- 
tion into  English  of  Luther's  Small  Catechism  and 
of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  in  the  last  of 
which  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  also  participated. 
The  General  Synod  and  the  General  Council  also 
issue  a  common  Sunday  School  paper,  bearing  the 
titles  respectively,  Lutheran  Young  People  and 
Young  Folks.  The  proposed  establishment  in  India 
of  a  Lutheran  Theological  Seminary,  under  the 
auspices  of  all  Lutheran  bodies  represented  on  the 
field,  has  the  hearty  support  of  the  General  Synod. 
The  General  Synod  has  maintained  an  unbroken 
existence  for  almost  a  century.  Built  upon  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Apostles  and  prophets,  Christ  Jesus 
Llimself  being  the  corner-stone,  it  stands  unshaken 
in  its  faith  and  in  the  conviction  that  God  has  ap- 
pointed a  service  which  it  must  perform.  A  large 
measure  of  divine  favor  has  been  its  portion,  and  by 
grace  it  has  accomplished  much  good.  It  does  not 
cherish  the  delusion  that  its  present  form  and  its 
existing  relation  to  other  bodies  are  necessarily 
perpetual.  It  stands  ready  to  join  hands  with  all 
who  are  of  like  faith,  in  the  endeavor  to  realize  the 
unity  for  which  our  Lord  Himself  so  earnestly 
prayed. 


The  German  Iowa  Synod 

By  REV.  PROF.  S.  FRITSCHEL,  D.  D. 

THE  Synod  of  Iowa  and  Other  States,  which  at 
the  present  time  numbers  nearly  570  ministers, 
embraces  eight  districts  covering  an  area  comprising 
nineteen  States,  from  Ohio  to  Washington,  and 
from  Minnesota  and  Dakota  down  to  Texas,  and 
was  founded  the  24th  of  August,  1854,  by  three 
ministers,  one  candidate  (who  was  to  go  as  mis- 
sionary to  the  Indians),  and  one  lay  delegate.  All 
the  members  of  the  newly  organized  body  had  been 
sent  from  Germany  by  Pastor  W.  Loehe  and  the 
Society  for  Home  Missions  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  Bavaria.  This  Society  previously,  in  connection 
with  the  Missouri  Synod,  had  been  doing  a  blessed 
missionary  work  among  the  immigrants  in  the  cen- 
tral States  of  the  Union.  It  represented  a  strictly 
confessional  as  well  as  cecumenical  Lutheranism. 
The  work  thus  commenced  was  to  be  carried  on  by 
the  Iowa  Synod.  The  congregation  at  St.  Sebald, 
Iowa,  a  Lutheran  Church  colony,  in  whose  midst 
the  organization  of  the  Synod  took  place,  and  tlie 
Theological  Seminary  at  Dubuque,  Iowa,  which  was 
to  furnish  ministers  for  the  missionary  work  of  the 
Synod,  were  founded  by  Loehe.  Indeed,  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Svnod  itself  took  place  under  his 

(69) 


70  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

advice  and  auspices,  as  had  been  the  case  when  the 
Missouri  Synod  had  been  estabhshed.  This  con- 
nection with  Loehe  has  given  to  the  Synod  from  its 
very  beginning  the  pecuHar  churchly  character 
which  in  the  course  of  time,  though  developed  and 
set  forth  more  distinctly,  it  has  always  faithfully 
preserved. 

I.  Its  first  Synodical  declaration  was  an  unre- 
served acknowledgment  of  the  Confessions  of  the 
Lutheran  Church.  This  is  the  unalterable  basis  of 
the  constitution  of  the  Synod  as  well  as  of  its  con- 
gregations. The  Synod  as  such  accepts  the  zvhole  of 
the  Symholical  Books,  as  contained  in  the  Concordia 
of  1580,  whilst  as  to  the  constitutions  of  the  indi- 
vidual congregations,  an  explicit  acknowledgment 
of  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  and  of  Luth- 
er's Catechism  is  considered  sufficient,  since  by  such 
acknowledgment  the  congregations,  on  their  part, 
implicitly  accept  the  whole  of  the  Lutheran  Confes- 
sions. The  Synod  does  not  want  to  have  this  Con- 
fession accepted  only  as  to  single  portions  or  its 
essential  parts,  hut  fully  and  in  all  its  doctrines.  It 
acknowledges  just  as  explicitly  its  thetical  as  its  anti- 
thetical decisions  and  declarations.  It  confesses 
what  the  Lutheran  Symbols  confess,  over  against 
the  corresponding  error,  and  rejects  with  equal  de- 
cidedness  all  errors  rejected  by  them.  It  discoun- 
tenances every  acceptance  of  the  Lutheran  Symbols 
by  which  they  are  accepted  with  the  reservation 
as  far  as  they  are  in  harmony  with  the  Word  of 


OF  THE   GERMAN   IOWA   SYNOD  7I 

God,  because  by  this  their  conformity  with  the 
Scriptures  would  be  put  in  question;  on  the  con- 
trary, it  accepts  them  as  its  own  Confession,  because 
it  is  convinced  of  their  conformity  with  the  Script- 
ures. This  Confession,  therefore,  is  as  well  its  ride 
of  all  teaching  and  practice  in  the  Church  as  also 
the  bond  of  church  fcUozvship.  The  Synod  does  not 
allow  in  its  midst  any  doctrine  or  administration 
of  the  Sacraments,  any  church  or  text-books,  any 
regulations  pertaining  to  divine  service,  that  would 
be  antagonistic  to  the  Symbols,  and  it  makes  it  the 
duty  of  its  Presidents  and  Visitors  to  see  that  no 
deviations  of  this  kind  shall  occur.  And  whilst  on 
the  one  hand  it  readily  holds  fcUozvship,  especially 
altar  fellowship,  with  such  as  are  one  with  it  in 
faith  and  confession,  though  they  may  differ  in  un- 
essential points,  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  it  must,  for 
the  sake  of  truth,  and  on  account  of  the  great  im- 
portance of  the  Confession,  deny  fellowship  to  those 
who  do  not  accept  the  same  Confession  with  it.  Ac- 
cording to  the  constitutions  of  Synod  and  congre- 
gations, only  such  persons  can  be  admitted  as  mem- 
bers of  a  congregation  who  accept  the  Confession  of 
the  Lutheran  Church;  and  only  such  congregati07is 
as  make  the  Lutheran  Confession  their  own  can  be 
admitted  as  members  of  the  Synod,  and  only  such 
ministers  as  bind  themselves  to  the  Concordia  are 
entrusted  with  the  ministry. 

However,  in  assigning  this  dominating  position  to 
the  Confessions,  the  Iowa  Synod  has  always  tried 


72  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

to  guard  against  exaggerations  by  which  the  Con- 
fessions are  put  on  a  level  with  the  Word  of  God, 
and  are  given  a  weight  which  is  due  only  to  the  latter. 
The  Synod  is  in  earnest  when  it  confesses  that  the 
Holy  Scriptures  are  the  only  true  rule  by  which  all 
teachers  and  all  doctrines  are  to  be  measured  and 
judged,  and  it  does  not  derive  the  normati've  author- 
ity of  the  teachings  of  the  Confession  from  the 
fact  that  they  are  the  decisions  of  the  Church,  but 
from  the  fact  that  they  are  the  pure  and  genuine  ex- 
position and  interpretation  of  the  Divine  Word. 
It  has,  therefore,  in  all  its  practice,  followed  a 
biblico-practical  course,  and  has  tried,  guided  by  the 
Confessions,  to  recur  in  all  cases  and  questions,  to 
the  Scriptures  themselves,  and  to  draw  from  them 
directly.  The  Symbols  are  not  considered,  like  the 
Scriptures,  as  a  judge,  but  as  a  witness  and  decla- 
ration of  the  faith,  as  to  how  at  any  time  the  Holy 
Scriptures  have  been  understood  and  explained  in 
the  articles  in  controversy  in  the  Church  of  God  by 
those  who  then  lived,  and  how  the  opposite  dogma 
was  rejected  and  condemned.  On  account  of  this 
historical  view  of  the  Symbols,  the  Iowa  Synod 
does  not  see  in  them  a  legal  code  of  atomistic  dog- 
mas of  equal  value  and  equal  weight,  but  an  or- 
ganic expression  of  the  living  connection  of  the 
faith  of  the  Church.  Accordingly,  there  is  a  dis- 
tinction to  be  made  between  the  dogmas,  properly 
speaking,  and  other  parts  of  the  Symbols;  as  e.  g., 
the  frequent  exegetical,  historical  and  other  deduc- 


OF   THE   GERMAN    IOWA   SYNOD  73 

tions,  illustrations  and  demonstrations.  Only  the 
former,  i.  c,  the  dogmas  constitute  the  Confession, 
whilst  the  latter  partake  of  this  dignity  only  indi- 
rectly, inasmuch  as  they  define  the  dogmas  more 
clearly.  What  the  Symbols  state  and  intend  as  a 
Confession,  the  articles  and  doctrines  of  faith,  this 
it  is  to  which  the  Synod  is  bound,  not  because  they 
are  the  Church's  decisions  of  the  controversies  that 
have  come  up,  but  because  they  present  the  saving 
truth  and  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures.  The  Church 
is  bound  to  accept  these  doctrines  which  constitute 
the  Confession  in  their  totality,  without  exception, 
whilst  the  demand  of  doctrinal  conformity  by  no 
means  includes  all  unessential  opinions  which  are 
only  occasionally  mentioned  in  the  Symbols.  Thus, 
e.  g.,  the  obligation  to  the  Symbols  by  no  means 
refers  equally  to  the  article  concerning  the  Concep- 
tion of  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Perpetual  Virginity  of  Mary,  though  the 
latter  occasionally  occurs  in  the  Smalcald  Articles. 
This  would  be  a  legalistic  misuse  of  the  Symbols 
against  which  the  Iowa  S)mod  has  always  protested. 
The  Synod,  however,  is  far  from  being  satisfied 
with  a  merely  formal  adherence  to  the  Confessions. 
It  does  not  wish  to  lay  up  the  inheritance  of  pure 
doctrine  and  faith  which  we  have  received  from  our 
fathers  in  a  napkin,  but  considers  it  as  a  pound 
which  is  to  be  employed  most  profitably.  It  dis- 
countenances all  dead  orthodoxy,  and  next  to  the 
purity  of  doctrine  and  a  Scriptural  administration 


74  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

of  the  sacraments  it  lays  all  stress  upon  showing 
the  faith  in  a  Christian  life.  It  emphasizes  true  con- 
version, repentance  and  faith  by  personal  assurance 
of  salvation  and  a  godly  life.  It  has  from  its  be- 
ginning tried  to  enforce  strict  church  discipline  in 
its  congregations,  and  their  constitutions  require  of 
those  who  seek  to  be  admitted  to  membership  evi- 
dence of  a  Christian  life.  Such  discipline  it  also 
endeavors  to  enforce  in  regard  to  Secret  Societies, 
against  which  its  congregations  are  earnestly 
warned.  In  all  relations  of  Christian  and  church 
life  it  urges  the  necessity  of  showing  the  true  faith 
in  good  works ;  in  rendering  aid  to  its  needy  mem- 
bers, widows  and  orphans,  in  the  work  of  Home  and 
Foreign  Missions,  and  in  fostering  a  proper  ar- 
rangement of  Christian  worship,  and  a  right  devel- 
opment of  congregational  and  churchly  life  in  gen- 
eral. From  the  beginning  the  Synod  has  desig- 
nated this  tendency  as  a  striving  after  a  more  per- 
fect development  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Al- 
though we  must  lament  that  in  all  these  points  the 
ideal  aimed  at  has  not  as  yet  been  attained,  never- 
theless the  Synod  is  still  striving  for  this  object 
with  untiring  zeal.  It  also  is  striving  after  a  growth 
in  richer  and  deeper  knowledge,  but  only  on  the 
basis  of  the  Symbols  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Divine  Word. 

If,  therefore,  on  the  one  hand,  the  Synod  de- 
cidedly rejects  every  imaginary  progress  and  every 
so-called  development  of  the  dogma  antagonistic  to 


OF   THE   GERMAN    IOWA   SYNOD  75 

the  Confession,  it  acknowledges  on  the  other  hand  as 
true  progress  and  development  in  the  right  direction 
all  development  that  grows  out  of  this  principle  and 
stays  within  the  limits  of  the  same.  To  such 
progress  the  Synod  is  open,  for  such  there  is  room 
in  it,  and  within  these  limits  it  is  striving  for  a 
greater  perfection. 

2.  Out  of  this  fundamental  confessional  position 
of  the  Iowa  Synod  there  necessarily  results  the  at- 
titude it  has  assumed  in  the  several  controversies  in 
which  it  has  been  involved.  The  organization  of 
the  Iowa  Synod  was  caused  by  the  fact  that  the 
Missouri  Synod  in  its  controversy  with  the  Synod 
of  Buffalo  concerning  the  Church  and  the  Ministry, 
would  no  longer  suffer  in  its  midst  nor  admit  to  its 
membership  the  men  sent  by  Loehe  who  could  not 
agree  with  Missouri's  view.  Then,  as  they  could 
neither  side  with  Buffalo  nor  with  Missouri,  they 
commenced  a  new,  independent  activity  farther 
west.  Thus  the  Synod  found  itself  in  its  very  in- 
cipiency  involved  iii  a  doctrinal  controversy  in  w^hich 
the  principal  point  between  itself  and  Missouri  was 
the  so-called  Uehertragungslehre,  the  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  conferring  the  office  upon  the  minister. 
The  Iowa  Synod  rejected  the  view  according  to 
which  the  ministerial  office  is  derived  from  the  in- 
visible Church,  that  it  is  originally  vested  in  the 
individual  members  of  the  same  in  their  spiritual 
priesthood,  and  by  them  conferred  upon  the  minis- 
ters of  the  Church  through  their  vocation  to  the 


7b  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

Holy  Office.  The  Iowa  Synod  agreed  with  Mis- 
souri in  so  far  as  it  taught  that  the  Holy  Office  was 
originally  and  directly  given  by  God  to  the  Church, 
but  differed  from  Missouri  in  so  far  as  it  main- 
tained that  the  Office  was  given  to  the  Church  in 
its  totality,  not  to  its  single  members,  and  that  the 
Church  possessed  the  Office  in  and  with  the  means 
of  grace,  not  in  the  spiritual  priesthood  and  in  the 
state  of  grace  of  its  true  members.  And  if  the  con- 
ferring of  the  Office  takes  place  in  accordance  with 
a  regular  call  by  a  single  congregation,  it  is  not  on 
account  of  the  true  members  of  the  invisible  Church 
that  may  be  hidden  in  it,  but  because  the  Church, 
which  in  its  totality  possesses  the  Office  and  which  is 
as  well  invisible  communion  of  the  Spirit  as  visible 
communion  of  the  means  of  grace,  is  in  its  totality 
and  essence  existing  even  in  the  smallest  individual 
congregation,  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  to- 
gether in  the  name  of  Jesus.  The  principal  interest 
which  the  Iowa  Synod  had  in  this  controversy  was, 
however,  to  assert  the  principle  that  it  is  sufficient 
for  church  unity  to  agree  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Confession  that  the  Office  was  given  to  the  Church, 
not  to  single  persons,  and  that  a  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  the  farther  theological  exposition  of 
this  doctrine  does  not  destroy  the  unity  of  faith  and 
confession,  and  that  it,  therefore,  must  not  stand  in 
the  way  of  a  mutual  recognition  as  brethren  in  the 
faith.  This  is  the  position  of  the  Synod  in  the  con- 
troversy concerning  the  Holy  Office.     It  is  evident 


OF   THE   GERMAN    IOWA   SYNOD  ']'] 

at  a  glance  that  this  is  merely  the  consequence  of  its 
attitude  to  the  Confessions. 

3.  Quite  a  similar  position  the  Synod  has  taken 
concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  Millennium.  This  con- 
troversy also  was  forced  upon  it  from  the  outside. 
When  Chiliasm,  which  had  formerly  been  tolerated 
by  the  Missouri  Synod,  was  proscribed  by  it,  and  the 
Rev.  Schieferdecker  expelled,  the  latter  applied  to 
the  Iowa  Synod,  and  asked  whether  they  considered 
him  a  heretic,  who  must  be  denied  church-fellowship 
on  account  of  his  views  of  the  Millennium.  As  the 
Synod,  according  to  its  confessional  standpoint,  an- 
swered this  question  negatively,  it  was  accused  of 
holding  an  un-Lutheran  view  with  regard  to  the 
Millennium.  This  compelled  the  Synod  to  defend  its 
position  on  this  question,  and  to  explain  the  kind  of 
eschatological  opinions  or  doctrines  for  which  it 
claimed  the  toleration  of  the  Church.  It  protested 
against  the  insinuation  that  this  presentation  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  Conversion  of  Israel,  of  Antichrist, 
and  his  destruction  at  the  Second  Coming  of  Christ, 
of  the  Millennium  and  the  First  Resurrection,  were  a 
Synodical  Confession,  and  that,  consequently,  Chili- 
asm  was  made  a  Synodical  dogma.  Only  what  the 
Confessions  state  on  tlie  Last  Things  it  wanted  to 
have  considered  as  its  own  Confession.  Accord- 
ingly it  rejected  every  view  of  the  Millennium  by 
which  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  God  during  that 
period  would  be  made  an  outward  worldly  kingdom 
and  in  which  the  Church  would  not  be  essentially 


78  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

and  principally  a  communion  of  faith;  in  general — 
every  view  according  to  which  there  would  be 
another  way  of  salvation  in  that  period  than  in  the 
present.  On  the  other  hand,  Synod  declared  that  it 
could  not  reject  the  doctrines  mentioned  above, 
concerning  the  Conversion  of  Israel,  etc.,  as  heresies 
which  would  destroy  church-fellowship,  as  long  as 
they  were  free  from  the  characteristics  of  a  fanat- 
ical view^  of  Chiliasm  as  given  in  the  Symbols.  So 
long  as  such  fanatical  views  were  not  entertained, 
it  declared  there  was  room  in  the  Synod  for  these 
opinions  as  well  as  for  the  opposing  anti-Chiliastic 
ones,  and  in  such  difference  of  opinion  it  could  not 
see  a  prejudice  to  the  necessary  unity  of  faith.  Its 
reason  for  taking  this  position  was  that,  in  this  case, 
the  point  in  question  was  not  the  dogma,  but  theo- 
logical problems,  in  regard  to  which,  notwithstand- 
ing the  fullest  harmony  in  the  Confessions,  there 
may  be  a  difference  of  opinion.  On  account  of  such 
differences,  church  fellowship,  which  rests  only 
upon  the  Confession  itself,  must  not  be  denied. 

4.  The  doctrines  of  the  Conversion  of  Israel,  the 
Millennium  and  the  First  Resurrection,  are  not  re- 
ferred to  in  any  of  the  Symbolical  statements.  But 
the  Antichrist  is  spoken  of  at  different  places,  and 
the  Smalcald  Articles  declare,  not  only  occasionally, 
but  directly,  that  the  Pope  is  the  true  Antichrist.  The 
Iowa  Synod  has,  therefore,  been  claimed  as  being 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  Confessions,  because  it 
does  not  see  the  Antichrist  solely  and  exclusively 


OF   THE   GERMAN    IOWA   SYNOD  79 

in  the  Pope,  but  declares  that  the  opinion  may  be 
tolerated  in  the  Church  according  to  which  a  per- 
sonal Antichrist  is  to  be  expected  in  the  Last  Times. 
But  also  on  this  question  the  Iowa  Synod  fully  ac- 
cepts all  the  declarations  of  the  Confessions.  They 
do,  however,  not  teach  that  the  Antichrist  is  solely 
and  exclusively  the  Pope.  The  Confessions  do  not 
teach  that  the  Antichrist  is  the  Pope,  but  that 
the  Pope  is  the  Antichrist;  and  far  from  see- 
ing the  Antichrist  exclusively  in  the  Pope,  they 
rather  state  in  another  place  that  popery  is  a  part 
of  the  Antichrist's  kingdom.  The  statement  that 
popery  is  an  entire  subversion  of  Christianity,  con- 
sequently antichristendom,  as  prophesied  in  Holy 
Scripture,  is  indeed  just  as  much  a  part  of  the 
confession  of  faith  as  the  rejection  of  false  doc- 
trine. But  the  questions  whether  Antichrist  be  a 
collective  term,  only  or  also  an  individual  person, 
whether  the  prophecy  concerning  the  same  be 
wholly  fulfilled,  or  whether  some  future  fulfillment 
is  yet  to  be  expected,  are  exegetical  problems  which 
have  not  been  considered  by  the  Confessions.  The 
Iowa  Synod  does  not,  therefore,  disagree  with  the 
Confessions,  when,  on  the  one  hand,  it  accepts  all 
the  assertions  covering  the  antichristian  character 
of  popery,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  regards  the  ques- 
tions mentioned  above  as  open  ones,  without  a  con- 
fessional character,  and,  therefore,  without  affect- 
ing the  unity  of  the  Church,  tolerates  the  opinion 
that  Antichrist  is  yet  to  be  expected,  along  with  that 


8o  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

that  the  Roman  Pontiff  is  exclusively  Antichrist. 

5.  The  position  v^hich  the  Iowa  Synod  has  taken 
in  these  controverted  questions  is  only  the  natural 
consequence  of  the  principle  which  even  without 
regard  to  its  special  application  it  professes  in  gen- 
eral, i.  e.,  the  recognition  of  Open  Questions.  The 
more  earnestly  it  emphasizes  over  against  unionism, 
the  necessity  of  agreement  in  doctrine  for  Church 
unity,  and  declares  it  to  be  absolutely  necessary  to 
church- fellowship,  the  more  earnest  also  are  its  en- 
deavors to  avoid  sectarian  exaggeration.  The  Augs- 
burg Confession  declares :  'To  the  true  unity  of  the 
Church,  it  is  enough  to  agree  concerning  the  doc- 
trine of  the  gospel  and  the  administration  of  the 
Sacraments,"  that  is,  to  agree  in  the  doctrine  of  sal- 
vation and  of  faith.  Herein  is  implied  the  further 
declaration  that  an  agreement  must  not  necessarily 
exist  in  such  doctrines  which  are  not  doctrines  of 
faith.  The  Iowa  Synod  accordingly  declares  that 
for  church- fellowship  there  must  be  required  no  ab- 
solute agreement  in  doctrine,  but  only  an  agreement 
in  the  doctrine  of  faith;  but  this,  indeed,  in  the 
zvhole  doctrine  of  faith,  and  in  all  its  articles.  This 
doctrine  of  faith  forms  the  contents  of  the  Confes- 
sions, and,  consequently,  the  sum  total  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Confessions  is  the  indispensable  extent 
of  agreement  in  doctrine.  There  must  not  be  in- 
ferred from  this,  however,  that  these  doctrines 
are  indispensable  and  binding  doctrines  of  faith 
because     they     are     found     in     the     Symbols     of 


OF   THE   GERMAN    IOWA   SYNOD  8l 

the  Church,  and  that  the  decision  of  the  Church 
Avhich  is  expressed  by  the  Symbols  gives  them 
the  vahie  and  vahdity  of  divinely  certain  and 
binding  doctrines  of  salvation.  On  the  contrary,  the 
Church  has  laid  them  down  in  its  Confessions  only 
because  they  are  the  doctrines  of  Scripture  on  which 
saving  faith  depends.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Iowa 
Synod  rejects  the  opinion  that  an  agreement  also  in 
such  doctrines  of  Scripture  which  are  no  doctrines 
of  faith,  be  conditio  sine  qua  non  of  church-fellow- 
ship, and  that  church-fellowship  must  be  dissolved 
on  their  account.  If  there  be  agreement  in  all  other 
respects  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Confessions,  and 
there  only  remains  a  difference  in  other  points,  the 
Synod  will  tolerate  this  and  regard  them  as  open 
questions.  This  does  not  mean  that  we  should  not 
strive  for  agreement  even  in  such  doctrines  as  e.  g., 
Uehertragungslehre,  Conversion  of  Israel,  Anti- 
christ, etc.,  or  that  theological  controversies  con- 
cerning them  are  useless  and  harmful.  Neither  are 
they,  by  styling  them  open  questions,  declared  to  be 
doubtful  and  uncertain  doctrines,  concerning  which 
a  definite  and  certain  persuasion  cannot  be  attained, 
and  by  no  means  does  this  import  that  they  could 
arbitrarily  be  adopted  or  rejected.  But  this  only  is 
the  meaning  of  that  expression  that  these  doctrines, 
on  which  there  is  in  fact  a  diversity  of  opinion  even 
among  those  who  fully  agree  in  the  Confessions, 
must  not  be  regarded  as  church-dividing,  and  that  a 
6 


82  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

difference  of  their  conception  can  be  allowed,  be- 
cause they  are  not  doctrines  of  faith,  and  from  their 
very  nature  there  can  be  no  certainty  of  faith  con- 
cerning them,  since  they  are  not  as  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly taught  in  Scripture  as  the  doctrine  of  faith. 
The  lov^a  Synod  has  mainly  been  induced  to  hold 
this  position  by  the  earnest  desire  to  prevent  the 
doctrinal  and  confessional  basis  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  from  being  rendered  doubtful  in  its  divine 
certainty  by  having  mixed  with  it  merely  theologi- 
cal views  and  opinions,  and  from  having  destroyed 
thereby  its  fundamental  character,  according  to 
which  it  forms  or  dissolves  church- fellowship. 

6.  Whilst  the  Iowa  Synod  will  not  suffer  any- 
thing to  be  added  to  this  basis,  it  objects  also  to  hav- 
ing anything  taken  away,  and  will  not  allow  any 
doctrine  of  the  Confessions  to  be  made  an  open 
question.  On  account  of  this  position  the  Synod 
was  moved  to  take  the  stand  which  it  has  held  in 
the  Predestinarian  controversy.  Soon  after  the 
Missourian  Predestinarianism  had  appeared  for  the 
first  time  in  1868,  the  Iowa  Synod  opposed  it  and 
repudiated  it  as  a  deviation  from  the  doctrine  of 
the  Confessions.  The  Synod  was  well  aware  that 
even  in  the  doctrine  of  Predestination  there  were 
points  which  must  be  considered  open  questions; 
e.  g.,  the  distinction  made  between  election  in 
its  wider  or  stricter  sense,  as  well  as  between 
voluntas  antecedens  and  conseqiicns,  the  teaching 
that  election  has  taken  place  intuitu  fidei,  implying 


OF   THE   GERMAN   IOWA   SYNOD  83 

that  faith  is  the  condition  or  the  instrumental  or  thic 
subordinate  impulsive  cause  of  election,  etc.  But 
from  tlie  very  beginning  Predestinarianism  was  pro- 
nounced by  the  Synod  to  be  apostasy  from  the  Con- 
fessions and  a  church-dividing  error.  The  Iowa 
Synod  by  no  means  holds  that  Predestination  signi- 
fies only  the  general  decree  to  save  all  men  through 
faith  in  Christ,  which  God  eternally  has  decreed, 
but  it  teaches  that  it  really  is  an  individual  Predesti- 
nation, and  if  a  man  is  saved,  it  avows  this  to  be  the 
effect  of  this  decree  on  him,  and  the  cause  thereof 
to  be  no  other  than  this  eternal,  effective,  gracious 
will  of  God,  and  in  no  way  man's  own  will,  self- 
determination  and  merit.  But  it  condemns  the  doc- 
trine that  Predestination  of  individuals  or  election  is 
a  decree  essentially  different  from  the  universal  de- 
cree of  grace  which  God  has  decreed  outside  of  and 
aside  of  and  in  addition  to  the  universal  one,  so  that 
there  be  found  in  God  a  contradicting  will,  a  uni- 
versal one  and  one  not  universal.  Over  against  this 
it  maintains  that  individual  Predestirhation  has  taken 
place  within  the  universal  decree  of  God,  is  con- 
tained in  it,  and  is  no  other  zvill  than  this  same  uni- 
versal decree  itself,  however  with  a  special  refer- 
ence, namely,  inasmuch  as  it  refers  to  the  children 
of  God  in  special,  as  they  are  known  by  God  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world.  It  prefers  that  mode 
of  teaching  vvhich  represents  Predestination  as  the 
applying  of  the  universal  decree  to  the  individual, 
in  whom  it  becomes  realized,  which  works  his  salva- 


84  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

tion  and  everything  thereto  pertaining,  consequently 
also  the  saving  faith,  and  prefers  it  because  by  this 
mode  also  the  comforting  power  of  predestination 
is  rendered  prominent.  It  also  allows,  however,  the 
other  mode  of  teaching,  which  takes  Predestination 
in  its  narrower  sense,  strictly  as  the  election  of  a 
definite  number  of  certain  men  from  the  great  mass 
of  reprobates,  if  there  be  also  taught  that  Predesti- 
nation in  this  sense  has  taken  place  mtuitu  fidei. 
The  Synod,  however,  rejects  the  opinion  that  a  dis- 
criminating selection  of  some  before  others  has  been 
made  zvithotit  regard  to  man's  conduct,  merely  ac- 
cording to  the  pleasure  of  the  will  of  God,  and  holds 
that  this  can  be  asserted  of  Predestination  only 
when  it  is  taken  in  accordance  with  the  mode  of 
teaching  mentioned  in  the  first  place,  as  the  uni- 
versal decree  referring  and  applied  to  individuals. 
And  whilst  it  asserts  Predestination  in  the  latter 
meaning  to  be  the  source  of  our  salvation  as  well 
as  of  our  faith  and  our  persevering  in  the  same,  it 
denies  that  Predestination,  being  taken  merely  as 
selection,  is  the  cause  of  some  believing  and  others 
abiding  in  unbelief.  It  rejects  the  opinion  that  even 
the  most  obdurate  resistance  of  those  who  were  or- 
dained by  this  selection  will  not  hinder  it  from  mak- 
ing them  believers  and  save  them,  and  maintains,  on 
the  contrary,  that  the  obdurate  resistance  of  the 
reprobates,  which  God  has  foreknown,  has  prevented 
Him  from  predestinating  them  in  His  eternal  de- 
cree.    It  disowns  the  opinion  that  the  effect  of  uni- 


OF   THE   GERMAN    IOWA    SYNOD  85 

versal  grace  is  indeed  exhibited  and  manifested  in 
the  faith  of  those  who  beheve  for  a  time,  but  that 
perseverance  in  faith  is  the  effect  of  selecting  grace 
alone.  And  concerning  the  appeal  to  the  secret  will 
of  God,  the  Iowa  Synod  unreservedly  recognizes  the 
manifold  unsearchable  problems  which  pertain  to  it, 
but  denies  that  the  cause  of  God's  not  having  elected 
all  men  and  of  His  not  taking  away  the  resistance 
even  from  the  reprobates  is  His  secret  will,  accord- 
ing to  which  He  will  not  do  with  them  what  He 
does  with  His  elect,  since  it  is  distinctly  revealed 
that  the  cause  thereof  is  not  in  God,  but  in  the  perse- 
vering self-hardening  of  man.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is,  indeed,  concealed  in  the  secret  foreknowledge 
of  God  who  of  those  who  are  called  will  believe,  and 
zvho  not,  and  who  of  the  converted  will  persevere 
and  who  will  not.  And  as  God  has  reserved  these 
secrets  for  his  wisdom,  and  has  not  revealed  them, 
according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Iowa  Synod,  the 
elect  can,  indeed,  be  absolutely  sure  of  their  election 
and  preservation  on  the  part  of  God,  but  not  on  their 
part  of  their  persevering  in  faith,  because  the  revela- 
tion of  the  decree  of  Predestination  on  which  rests 
the  certainty  of  perseverance  of  the  elect  runs  thus, 
that  God  would  support  His  work  in  them  to  the 
end,  //  they  obsers^e  God's  Word,  pray  diligently, 
abide  in  God's  goodness,  and  faithfully  use  the  gifts 
received.  This  is  the  position  the  Iowa  Synod  holds 
in  regard  to  Predestinationism  at  large,  and  in  its 
particulars,  and  in  this  manner  it  has  endeavored  to 


86  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

enforce  the  Confessions  as  the  indispensable  foun- 
dation of  doctrine  also  in  this  special  point  over 
against  Predestinarianism,  which  is  fundamentally 
opposed  to  the  same. 

7.  In  a  different  manner  it  has  pursued  this  aim, 
by  taking  the  position  which  it  holds  in  regard  to 
the  General  Council.  In  consequence  of  its  con- 
fessional principles  it  hailed  with  joy  the  attempt  to 
unite  the  Lutheran  Church  of  our  country  on  the 
basis  of  the  Confessions,  the  whole  of  the  Confes- 
sions, and  the  Confessions  alo7ie.  Though  it  would 
have  preferred  a  Free  Conference  as  a  preliminary 
step,  yet  it  was  not  averse  to  the  idea  of  founding 
a  General  Council,  when  from  another  quarter  it 
was  claimed  that  this  was  complying  with  a  deep- 
felt  want,  and  that  the  necessary  conditions  there- 
for existed.  According  to  its  principles  of  Confes- 
sion, however,  it  could  join  such  a  General  Body 
only  if  the  sam.e  would  recognize  also  the  Lutheran 
Confessions  as  the  Church-uniting  and  Church-di- 
viding basis,  and  repudiate  mixed  communion  and 
exchange  of  pulpits  with  those  of  another  faith. 
The  General  Council,  however,  was  not  prepared 
to  do  this,  and  the  Iowa  Synod  accordingly  was 
compelled  to  defer  its  full  connection  with  the  same. 
It  did,  however,  not  withdraw  entirely,  but  entered 
into  a  relation  to  it  which  had  been  provided  for  by 
the  constitution  of  the  General  Council,  and  by 
which  the  Synod  was  enabled  to  take  part  not  only 
in  its  foreign  missionary,  liturgical  work,  etc.,  but 


OF   THE   GERMAN    IOWA    SYNOD  87 

also  in  the  debates  on  the  topics  of  Mixed  Com- 
munion and  Exchange  of  Pulpits,  which,  since  that 
time,  for  a  number  of  years  took  place  at  the  con- 
ventions of  the  General  Council.  At  all  times  its 
exertions  were  directed  to  demonstrating  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  indispensable  restriction  of  church-fel- 
lowship to  those  who  are  of  the  same  faith  as  is  im- 
plied in  the  acceptance  of  the  same  Confessions  and 
in  the  holding  of  the  same  confessional  basis.  The 
Synod  was  and  is  persuaded  that  it  adds  no  new 
condition  of  church-fellowship  at  all  to  the  Confes- 
sions, but  that  it  merely  asserts  the  inevitable  conse- 
quence of  the  same,  which  is  directly  contained 
therein.  For  the  participating  in  the  confessional 
act  of  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  real  and 
very  emphatic  confession,  and  the  principle  that  only 
those  who  are  of  the  same  household  of  faith  may 
partake  of  it,  whilst  those  of  another  faith  must  be 
excluded,  is  nothing  else  but  the  "we  believe  and 
profess,"  "we  reject  and  condemn,"  of  the  Con- 
fessions themselves  in  their  direct  application  to  ec- 
clesiastical practice.  The  Iowa  Synod  was  well 
aware  that  the  bad  custom  of  mixed  communion  and 
exchange  of  pulpits  which  has  crept  in  would  not  at 
otice  everywhere  be  discontinued,  and  that  such 
deviations  from  the  principle  occurring  now  and 
then  within  the  limits  of  the  different  Synods  should 
be  no  reason  against  entering  into  a  closer  union 
with  them.  But  the  acknowledgment  of  the  prin- 
ciple    that    church- fellowship — fellowship     in     the 


88  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

Lord's  Supper  and  the  pulpit — could  be  claimed  and 
granted  only  on  the  basis  of  unity  in  Confession,  it 
declared  to  be  indispensable,  since  it  pertained  to 
the  necessary  confessional  basis.  On  this  account 
the  different  and  successive  declarations  of  the  Gen- 
eral Council,  though  the  Iowa  Synod  would  not 
hesitate  to  acknowledge  the  progress  made,  did  not 
suffice,  as  they  rather  dwelt  on  the  pastoral  duty  in 
regard  to  the  application  of  this  principle  and  the 
dealing  with  exceptions,  instead  of  unreservedly  con- 
fessing this  principle  itself.  Not  before  the  clear 
and  plain  Confession  of  the  Swedish  Augustana 
Synod  concerning  this  question  had  been  endorsed 
by  the  General  Council  at  Galesburg,  in  1875,  and 
the  rule :  "Lutheran  pulpits  for  Lutheran  ministers 
only,  and  Lutheran  altars  for  Lutheran  communi- 
cants only,"  had  been  declared  to  be  founded  upon 
the  Word  of  God  and  the  Confessions  of  our 
Church,  did  the  Iowa  Synod  hold  that  the  confes- 
sional principle  was  recognized,  which  at  Fort 
Wayne,  in  1867,  it  had  urged  as  the  indispensable 
condition  on  which  the  official  union  of  Synods 
might  be  effected.  This  Galesburg  rule  was  strongly 
opposed  in  different  parts  of  the  General  Council. 
The  proceedings,  however,  which  took  place  at  the 
successive  meetings  of  the  General  Council,  and 
wliich  were  based  upon  the  theses  of  the  sainted 
Dr.  Krauth,  who  treated  the  question  of  altar  and 
pulpit  fellowship  with  incomparable  clearness, 
served  to  foster  tlie  expectation  that  this  opposition 


OF   THE   GERMAN    IOWA   SYNOD  89 

would  be  overcome  more  and  more,  and  the  Gales- 
burg  rule  gain  universal  and  approved  acceptance. 
The  Iowa  Synod  already  declared  that  it  was  hin- 
dered no  longer  from  organically  uniting  with  the 
General  Council  by  confessional  scruples,  as  at 
Galesburg  the  Confessional  principle,  which  it  con- 
sidered to  be  indispensable,  had  been  adopted.  Since 
that  time,  however,  within  the  General  Council 
things  seem  to  have  undergone  a  change.  The  un- 
derstanding of  the  Galesburg  rule,  as  the  official 
acknowledgment  of  the  principle  set  forth  by  the 
Iowa  Synod  at  Fort  Wayne,  has  repeatedly  and 
very  emphatically  been  opposed  by  very  influential 
parties,  and  declined  by  them  in  the  name  of  the 
General  Council.  These  declarations  have,  indeed, 
been  contradicted  just  as  emphatically  by  other  part- 
ie«^.  But  since  they  have  not  yet  been  renounced  by 
the  General  Council  itself,  the  Iowa  Synod  is  in- 
duced to  be  more  cautious  in  asserting  that  the  neces- 
sary conditions  for  full  Church  union  exist.  It  is 
now  waiting  for  further  development  within  the 
General  Council,  still  hoping  for  a  final  official  decla- 
ration in  favor  of  the  Confessional  principle  of  un- 
mixed communion  and  pulpit- fellowship.  Whatever 
this  final  decision  may  be,  this  principle  is  the  indis- 
pensable condition  of  all  Church  union  for  the  Iowa 
Synod,  in  accordance  with  its  position  to  the  Con- 
fessions. 

8.   Similarly  as  regarding  doctrine  and  church- 
fellowship,    the   Confessions   are   also   the   decisive 


90  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

norm  of  all  ecclesiastical  orders  and  rights.  In  this 
the  Synod  has  maintained  the  connection  with  the 
older  Lutheran  Church,  and  preserved  ecclesiastical 
tradition,  as  well  as  taken  in  account  the  circum- 
stances of  our  country. 

First  of  all,  the  Synod  is  taking  pains  to  ground 
and  confirm  the  necessary  agreement  in  faith  and 
confession  by  a  thorough  instruction  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church,  to  which  end  it  emphasizes  a  careful 
catechetical  instruction  aside  from  the  sermon.  It 
urges  not  otily  scrupulous  instruction  by  pastors  of 
the  catechumens,  but  also  the  fostering  and  upbuild- 
ing of  those  who  have  been  confirmed.  It  does  not 
neglect  Sunday  schools;  it  desires  simply  to  have 
them  conducted  in  a  strictly  Lutheran  way.  It  pre- 
fers, however,  the  reliable  and  well-approved  Church 
examinations  (Christenlehre),  and  will  not  have 
them  ranked  below  the  Sunday  school.  It  also  lays 
great  stress  on  the  establishment  of  parochial 
schools,  and  insists  on  its  members  sending  their 
children  to  the  same  up  to  the  time  of  their  con- 
firmation, as  a  conscientious  duty.  Where  congre- 
gations are  yet  too  small  to  support  parochial  teach- 
ers, the  ministers  give  instruction  in  these  schools, 
where  special  attention  is  paid  to  religious  instruc- 
tion. It  does  not  take  this  course  in  opposition  to 
the  public  schools.  These  are  rather  considered  a 
great  blessing  for  our  civil  life  and  an  indispensable 
institution  of  our  country,  which  must  vigorously 
be  supported  against  Romish  assaults.     But  since 


OF   THE   GERMAN    IOWA   SYNOD  9I 

the  baptism  of  infants  comprises  the  obHgation  of 
an  education  in  the  faith,  and  the  Sunday  school  in- 
struction is  not  sufficient  for  this  purpose,  Lutheran 
parents  can  make  use  of  schools  where  religion 
cannot  be  taught  for  their  baptized  children  only 
when  the  instruction  required  by  baptism  has  been 
brought  to  a  close  in  confirmation. 

Also,  in  respect  to  the  Order  of  Service  and  Min- 
isterial Acts,  the  Synod  strives  to  sustain  the  con- 
nection with  the  Old  Church  and  her  liturgical 
usages,  considering,  however,  at  the  same  time,  the 
circumstances  and  wants  of  the  time  present.  From 
the  very  beginning  Loehe's  Agenda  has  been  used 
in  its  congregations,  whose  liturg^^  is  essentially  the 
same  as  that  of  the  Church  Book  of  the  General 
Council,  with  whose  liturgical  principles  it  is  in  per- 
fect harmony.  This  liturgical  form  is  regarded  the 
ideal  to  which  the  congregations  ought  to  be  brought 
up,  but  the  Synod  claims  no  governmental  powers 
towards  introducing  it,  and  will  sooner  bear  diver- 
sity in  this  respect  than  injure  the  liturgical  liberty 
of  the  individual  congregations,  contrary  to  the 
Confessions  of  the  Church.  On  this  account  it  also 
does  not  insist  upon  the  establishment  of  Private 
Confession  under  all  circumstances,  but  where  it 
cannot  be  established  it  only  persists  the  more  stren- 
uously in  personally  giving  notice  of  one's  intention 
to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  the  examina- 
tion may  take  place  of  which  the  Confession  speaks. 

Its  Synodical  and   congregational   organisation, 


92  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

lastly,  is  based  upon  the  Symbolical  fundamental 
principle  that  all  ecclesiastical  power  be  given  to  the 
Church  principally  and  immediately,  as  the  same  is 
ecclesiastically  represented  even  in  the  smallest  local 
church.  Tt,  therefore,  acknowledges  no  other  gov- 
ernmental power  of  the  Synod,  but  that  which  has 
been  conferred  upon  the  same  by  the  individual  con- 
gregations, and  it  assumes  not  more  than  advisory 
power  in  regard  to  congregational  affairs.  The 
oversight  of  its  congregations  and  pastors,  with 
which  it  is  entrusted,  is  put  in  practice,  among  other 
things,  by  visitations,  which  regularly  take  place 
biennially.  It  strenuously  enforces  what  is  juris 
divini  in  the  Church  order.  It  rejects  the  license 
system,  the  calling  for  a  certain  time,  etc.,  and  ac- 
knowledges but  a  regular  call  by  election  on  the 
part  of  the  congregation  (the  President  of  the 
Synod  either  proposing  for  election  or  ratifying  the 
same)  and  by  ordination  and  installation  on  the  part 
of  the  Synod.  The  annual  conventions  of  its  dis- 
trict Synods  are  composed  of  the  pastors  as  the 
representatives  of  the  Ministerium  and  of  one  lay 
delegate  for  every  Synodical  congregation  as  repre- 
sentatives of  the  same.  To  the  conventions  of  the 
General  Synod,  which  occur  every  three  years,  six 
ministers  and  six  congregations  send  one  repre- 
sentative respectively.  A  standing  Executive  Com- 
mittee, or  "Synodal  Ausschuss,"  represents  the 
entire  Synod  during  the  time  intervening  between 
its  conventions. 


The  General  Council 

By  REV.  PROF.  H.  E.  JACOBS,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 

THE  General  Council  makes  no  claim  of  com- 
prising within  itself  all  truly  Lutheran  Synods 
and  churches  in  America.  Nor,  if  we  under- 
stand it,  does  it  have  any  such  aim.  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  a  ''General  Council  Lutheran 
Church."  There  may  be  those  who  have  regarded 
it  as  destined  to  supplant  or  merge  within  itself  all 
other  general  bodies,  but  we  are  sure  that  this  is 
not  its  spirit.  Its  great  purpose  is  the  development 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  of  this  country,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  principles  of  Confessional  and  His- 
torical Lutheranism.  It  affords  the  means  whereby 
any  number  of  Synods  that  have  been  brought  to  a 
real  understanding  and  a  hearty  appreciation  of 
each  other's  position,  as  true  and  consistent  ad- 
herents of  the  faith  confessed  at  Augsburg,  may 
cooperate  harmoniously,  until  the  time  come  for  a 
wider  and  more  general  union.  It  is  pledged  to  the 
maintenance  of  distinctive  Lutheranism.    Whether 

(93) 


94  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

this  require  the  permanence  of  any  one  particular 
organization,  call  it  General  Council,  or  General 
Synod,  or  Synodical  Conference,  or  anything  else, 
is  a  matter  of  relative  indifference.  It  makes  no 
war,  therefore,  upon  any  other  general  body,  anx- 
ious though  it  is  that  all  who  confess  the  same 
faith  should  recognize  and  cooperate  with  one  an- 
other. It  seeks  to  interfere  with  the  work  of  no 
Synods  or  congregations  or  individuals  claiming  to 
be  Lutheran,  but  not  choosing  to  unite  with  it. 
It  simply  demands  that  its  own  work  shall  be  ac- 
corded similar  respect ;  and  that  all  who  claim 
recognition  as  Lutherans  do  no  injury  to  the  com- 
mon cause  by  betraying  well-established  Lutheran 
principles.  It  has  embodied  its  entire  conception 
of  the  nature,  modes,  conditions  and  obligations  of 
Church  organization  in  most  clear  and  explicit 
terms  in  its  "Fundamental  Principles  of  Faith  and 
Church  Polity."  A  statement  of  these  "Funda- 
mental Principles,"  with  a  brief  exposition  of  their 
meaning,  will  afford  the  best  means  of  understand- 
ing the  General  Council's  position.  "The  Princi- 
ples of  Faith"  are: 

"I.  There  must  be  and  abide  through  all  time,  one  Holy 
Christian  Church,  which  is  the  assembly  of  all  believers,  among 
whom  the  Gospel  is  purely  preached,  and  the  Holy  Sacra- 
ments administered,  as  the  Gospel  demands, 

"To  the  true  unity  of  the  Church,  it  is  sufficient  that  there 
be  agreement  touching  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  that  it  be 
preached  in  one  accord  in  its  pure  sense,  and  that  the  cacra- 
ments  be  administered  conformably  to  God's  Word." 


OF  THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL.         95 

This  is  Article  VII  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
as  it  reads  in  the  German  text.  It  affords  the  defi- 
nition of  the  Church,  as  properly  speaking,  not  an 
external,  visible  body,  but  the  sum  total  of  all  be- 
lievers, whoever  and  v/herever  they  be,  "  the  Com- 
munion of  Saints,"  as  the  Apostles'  Creed  con- 
fesses, or  as  Luther,  in  the  Smalcald  Articles  de- 
clares: "Thank  God,  to-day  a  child  seven  years 
old  knows  what  the  Church  is,  viz:  saints,  be- 
lievers and  lambs,  who  hear  the  voice  of  their 
Shepherd;"  or  Melanchthon  in  the  Apology: 
"This  Church  exists,  viz:  the  truly  believing  and 
righteous  men  scattered  throughout  the  whole 
world." 

It  gives  the  marks  of  the  Church  as  "  the  pure 
preaching  of  the  Word,  and  the  right  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments. ' '  For  wherever  there  is 
true  faith  there  must  be  also  a  confession  of  this 
faith;  and  conversely,  wherever  God  gives  his 
Word,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  ever  active  and  begets  a 
true  people  of  God.  God's  Word  can  never  be 
without  God's  people,  or  God's  people  without 
God's  Word.  While  the  Church  properly  speak- 
ing is  not  visible,  and  no  one  can  draw  the  line 
dividing  precisely  the  believing  from  the  unbeliev- 
ing, nevertheless,  wherever  these  marks  appear,  we 
are  sure  that  the  Church  is  present,  even  though 
many  externally  connected  with  it  be  hypocrites. 
The  purity  of  the  preaching  also  has  its  degrees. 
As   the  Word  of  God   is  always  efficacious,  even 


96  DISTINCTIVK   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

when  accompanied  by  error,  it  is  impossible  to  de- 
termine the  extent  to  which  such  purity  may  be 
only  relative  where  a  Church  really  exists.  The 
purer  the  preaching  of  the  Word  and  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments,  the  purer  the  Church, 
the  firmer  its  foundations,  the  more  faithful  its 
testimony,  and  the  more  efficacious  its  work. 

If  the  Church,  therefore,  be  properly  the  true 
people  of  God,  the  unity  of  the  Church  consists  in 
the  bond  of  common  faith  in  Christ,  which,  by 
uniting  them  with  Him,  unites  them  also  with 
one  another.  This  unity  is  promoted  by  all  that 
strengthens  faith  in  Christ  and  His  word.  It  is 
retarded  by  all  that  weakens  such  faith,  or  recedes 
from  the  Gospel.  The  external  expression  of  this 
unity  consists  neither  in  external  organization, 
whether  under  a  hierarchy,  as  the  Papacy,  or  in  a 
confederacy  of  denominations — or  Synods;  nor  in 
the  use  of  identical  ceremonies  or  forms  of  worship, 
however  serviceable  this  may  be  in  promoting  good 
order  and  a  common  understanding.  "Agreement 
touching  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,"  which  in- 
cludes the  right  administration  of  the  sacraments, 
is  the  prime  requisite  of  Church  unity  and  Church 
union.  For  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  we  hear 
Christ's  voice,  and  as  every  one  follows  that  voice, 
one  impulse  from  one  Spirit  influences  the  entire 
body,  and  even  without  knowing  or  hearing  of  one 
another,  "they  speak  the  same  thing,"  and  are 
"perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  in 
the  same  judgment."     (i  Cor.  i.  10). 


OF  THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL.         97 

"  IL  The  true  unity  of  a  particular  Church,  in  virtue  of  which 
men  are  truly  members  of  one  and  the  same  Church,  and  by 
which  any  Church  abides  in  real  identity,  and  is  entitled  to  a 
continuation  of  her  name,  is  unity  in  doctrine  and  faith  and  in 
the  sacraments." 

A  distinction  between  a  universal  and  a  particu- 
lar Church  is  here  affirmed.  Different  degrees  of 
purity  in  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  sacraments,  different  degrees  of 
accuracy  in  defining  the  doctrines  of  God's  Word 
and  expressing  the  contents  of  the  one  common 
faith,  the  exaltation  of  adiaphora  into  matters  of 
essential  importance,  the  depreciation  of  matters  of 
essential  importance  into  adiaphora,  the  determin- 
ation of  forms  of  Church  government  as  indispen- 
sable conditions  of  Church  unity,  even  the  limita- 
tions determined  by  national  or  linguistic  lines, 
explain  the  division  of  the  Church  universal  into 
particular  churches.  But  whatever  be  the  prin- 
ciple according  to  which  the  separate  existence  of 
any  particular  Church  has  been  established,  what 
is  true  of  the  Church  Universal  is  true  also  of  all 
its  parts.  Its  unity  is  a  ''unity  in  doctrine  and 
faith  and  in  the  sacraments."  This  is  further 
explained: 

'•  That  she  continues  to  teach  and  to  set  forth,  and  that  her 
true  members  embrace  from  the  heart,  and  use,  the  articles  of 
faith  and  the  sacraments,  as  they  were  held  and  administered 
when  the  Church  came  into  distinctive  being  and  received  a 
distinctive  name." 

When  she  teaches  otherwise  than   they  taught 
7 


98  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

who  were  her  historical  ancestors,  she  has  broken 
her  unity  with  them,  and  is  no  longer  the  same 
Church,  no  difference  though  the  name  be  re- 
tained, or  however  preponderant  on  her  side  may 
be  numerical  majorities.  If  every  member  would 
agree  to  a  change  in  her  Creed,  this  would  not 
change  the  testimony  of  the  communion  which 
was  fixed  at  its  organization.  It  would  only  show 
that  the  historical  successor  was  a  different 
Church.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  cannot 
amend  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  so  as  to 
remove  elements  on  which  the  Tridentine  fathers 
insisted,  or  to  include  Protestant  conceptions  of 
doctrine,  without  thereby  ceasing  to  be  the  same 
Church  as  that  which  for  three  centuries  and  a 
half  has  recognized  those  decrees  as  the  standard 
of  teaching,  and  excluded  from  the  hope  of  salva- 
tion all  who  disputed  their  authority.  Every  par- 
ticular Church  stands  for  a  particular  statement  or 
type  of  doctrine;  and  the  life  of  that  particular 
Church  is  maintained  or  perishes,  as  the  statement 
or  type  of  doctrine  of  that  particular  Church  is 
maintained  or  surrendered. 

"III.  The  unity  of  the  Church  is  intrusted  to,  and  made 
manifest  in  the  solemn,  public  and  official  Confessions,  which 
are  set  forth,  to  wit:  The  generic  unity  of  the  Christian  Church 
in  the  general  Creeds,  and  the  specific  unity  of  pure  parts  of  the 
Christian  Church  in  their  specific  Creeds:  one  chief  object  of 
both  classes  of  which  Creeds  is,  that  Christians  who  are  in  the 
unity  of  faith  may  know  each  other  as  such,  and  may  have  a 
visible  bond  of  fellowship." 


OF  THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL.        99 

*'  IV.  That  Confessions  may  be  such  a  testimony  of  unity, 
and  bond  of  union,  they  must  be  accepted  in  every  statement 
of  doctrine,  in  their  own  true,  native,  original  and  only  sense. 
Those  who  set  them  forth  and  use  them,  must  not  only  agree 
to  use  the  same  words,  but  must  use  and  understand  these 
words  in  one  and  the  same  sense." 

The  Confessions,  as  visible  bonds  of  fellowship, 
are  articles  of  agreement  among  those  who  sub- 
scribe them.  Like  all  other  contracts,  to  beef  any 
value,  they  must  be  expressed  in  clear  and  unam- 
biguous terms.  A  contract  that  is  capable  of  being 
understood  in  two  or  more  senses  by  the  parties 
who  subscribe  it,  is  utterly  worthless,  and  need  not 
be  signed,  so  far  as  any  value  either  party  to  the 
contract  derives  from  it.  An  article  of  agreement, 
whether  in  Civil  Law  or  in  Church  Organization, 
reaches  its  end  only  when  both  parties  understand 
its  terms  "in  one  and  the  same  sense."  To  ask 
men  to  sign  a  document,  with  the  understanding 
that  the  meaning  intended  to  be  conveyed  by  those 
who  framed  it  need  not  be  accepted,  but  that  every 
one  is  free  to  attach  to  it  his  own  interpretation,  is 
an  attempt  to  defeat  the  very  end  for  which  the 
document  was  framed.  It  is  equivalent  to  using 
bushels  of  varying  capacities,  or  yard-sticks  of 
different  lengths.  The  famous  Tract  XCL,  by  the 
late  Cardinal  Newman,  was  an  effort  to  show  how 
men  could  subscribe  the  XXXIX  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  put  upon  them  a  Roman- 
izing interpretation,  i.  e.,  remain  in  the  Church  of 
England  while  being  at  heart  Romanists.     The 


lOO        DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

eflfort  is  here  made  to  prevent  any  such  procedure 
in  the  churches  uniting  in  the  General  Council. 
It  is  not  subscription  to  Confessions  of  faith  that  is 
desired,  so  much  as  to  the  faith  of  the  Confessions. 
The  unity  of  the  Church  does  not  consist  in  sub- 
scription to  the  same  Confessions,  but  in  the  accept- 
ance and  teaching  of  the  same  doctrines.  Where 
the  doctrines  of  the  Confessions  are  not  believed,  it 
is  the  solemn  duty  of  the  person  who  questions 
them  to  testify  on  all  occasions  against  them,  in- 
stead of  seeking  to  hide  his  dissent  under  an  am- 
biguous or  indefinite  formula.  The  right  of  private 
judgment  must  be  constantly  guaranteed;  but  this 
right  demands  that  Confessions  shall  be  subscribed 
only  after  they  have  been  tested  by  the  study  of 
the  Holy  Scripture,  and  their  entire  Scriptural 
character  has  been  determined.  In  other  words, 
*'that  Confessions  be  a  bond  of  union,"  they  must 
be  recognized  as  the  expressions  of  an  agreement 
that  is  deeper  and  firmer  than  that  of  the  mere 
document  that  is  recognized  and  subscribed. 

"V.  The  unity  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  as  a 
portion  of  the  Holy  Christian  Church,  depends  upon  her 
abiding  in  one  and  the  same  faith,  in  confessing  which  she  ob- 
tained her  distinctive  name,  her  political  recognition,  and  her 
history." 

Thus  it  is  explicitly  declared,  that  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Church  does  not  contain  all 
Christians,  but  is  only  a  portion  of  the  Holy 
Christian  Church.     We  know  of  no   one    in    the 


OF  THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  lOI 

General  Council  who  has  ever  taught  otherwise. 
Should  there,  however,  at  any  time  be  such  a  one 
among  us,  his  teaching  would  directly  contradict  a 
principle,  which  the  General  Council  requires 
every  Synod  uniting  with  it  to  adopt. 

But  where  the  faith  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
is  amended  or  modified,  while  the  bounds  of  the 
Holy  Christian  Church  may  not  be  transcended, 
the  unity  of  Lutheranism  is  undoubtedl}^  broken. 
If  the  faith  be  not  the  same  faith  which  gave  the 
Lutheran  Church  its  distinctive  position,  just  in  so 
far  there  is  no  unity  with  the  Lutheran  Church. 
However  high  the  position  which  a  teacher  may 
be  accorded  within  what  calls  itself  the  Lutheran 
Church,  if  he  hold  and  teach  e.  g,  that  original  sin 
is  not  truly  sin,  or  that  Christ  has  not  made  a 
sacrifice  for  all  the  sins  of  men,  or  that  some 
merit  is  connected  with  human  preparations  for 
God's  grace,  or  that  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  ordi- 
narily work  through  the  Word  and  sacraments,  or 
that  faith  is  sometimes  without  good  works,  or  that 
some  other  requirements  besides  agreement  con- 
cerning the  Gospel  and  sacraments  are  necessary 
to  the  unity  of  the  Church,  or  that  no  grace  is 
offered  in  Baptism,  or  that  there  is  no  real  presence 
in  the  Holy  Supper,  etc.,  he  has  broken  the  unity 
of  the  Lutheran  Church.  If  all  our  general  bodies, 
viz.,  General  Synod,  General  Council,  Synodical 
Conference,  United  Synod,  Ohio,  Iowa,  Norwegian 
Conference,  etc.,  were  to  unite  in  a  unanimous  re- 


I02        DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

jection  of  some  distinctive  feature  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  of  the  Reformation  period,  they  could  not 
change  the  faith  and  confession  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  but  would  simply  demonstrate  that  in 
such  action  these  bodies  were  no  longer  Lutheran, 
but  had  broken  with  the  unity  of  the  Lutheran 
Church.  The  unity  of  the  Lutheran,  as  a  particu- 
lar Church,  is  found  only  in  consistent  adherence 
to  her  historical  position,  and  in  progress  on  the 
lines  of  her  historical  development. 

"  VI.  The  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  is  by  preeminence 
the  Confession  of  that  faith.  The  acceptance  of  its  doctrines 
and  the  avowal  of  them  without  equivocation  or  mental  reser- 
vation, make,  mark  and  identify  that  Church  which  alone  in 
the  true,  original,  historical  and  honest  sense  of  the  term  is  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church." 

It  is  well  to  notice  that  it  is  not  the  acceptance 
of  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  but  the  ac- 
ceptance of  its  doctrines^  which  determines  the 
Lutheran  character  of  a  teacher  or  Church  body. 
A  man  who  has  never  subscribed  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  or  even  never  seen  it,  is  a  Lutheran, 
if  he  teach  the  doctrines  which  it  maintains.  A 
man  who  makes  his  subscription  to  the  Confession 
an  object  of  especial  boast,  is  no  Lutheran,  if  "by 
equivocation  or  mental  reservation,"  or  even  by 
excusable  misunderstanding,  he  depart  from  any  of 
the  doctrines  therein  clearly  and  professedly  taught. 
He  may  hold  or  not  hold  to  additional  confessions; 
he  may  see  or  may  deny  their  importance.     The 


OF  THE   GENERAL   COUNCIL.  103 

question  as  to  whether  he  be  a  lyUtheran  or  not, 
the  General  Council  affirms,  must  be  decided  from 
his  relation  to  the  doctrines  of  the  unaltered  Augs- 
burg Confession,  and  from  no  other  standard  what- 
ever. ^^^  Th^  doctrifies  oi  the  unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession — nothing  more,  nothing  less."  This 
is  all  that  the  General  Council  demands,  as  the 
test  of  what  is  Lutheran.  Hence  its  "principles'* 
continue: 

"VII.  The  only  Churches,  therefore,  of  any  land,  which  are 
properly  in  the  unity  of  that  communion,  and  by  consequence 
entitled  to  its  name.  Evangelical  Lutheran,  are  those  which 
sincerely  hold  and  truthfully  confess  the  doctrines  of  the  unal- 
tered Augsburg  Confession. 

"  VIII.  We  accept  and  acknowledge  the  doctrines  of  the  un- 
altered Augsburg  Confession  in  its  original  sense,  as  throughout 
in  conformity  with  the  pure  truth  of  which  God's  Word  is  the 
only  rule.  We  accept  its  statements  of  truth  as  in  perfect  ac- 
cordance with  the  canonical  Scriptures.  We  reject  the  errors 
it  condemns,  and  believe  that  all  which  it  commits  to  the 
liberty  of  the  Church,  of  right  belongs  to  that  liberty." 

But  while  thus  maintaining  that  the  acceptance 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  is 
enough  to  decide  the  Lutheran  character  of  a 
teacher  or  a  Church  or  a  Synod,  nevertheless, 
where  the  doctrines  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
have  been  called  into  question  and  involved  in 
controversy,  and  where  the  Confession  has  been 
subscribed  by  those  who  disbelieved  and  doubted 
its  doctrines,  and  who  attempted  to  justify  their 
subscription  upon  the  plea  that  they  were  at  liberty 


I04        DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES  AND   USAGES 

to  make  their  own  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of 
the  Confession,  and  that  the  Confession  could  be 
properly  subscribed  at  the  same  time  by  parties 
holding  diverse  views  of  what  it  meant,  it  has  at 
times  become  necessary  to  restate  the  doctrines  of 
the  unaltered  Confession  in  ampler  Confessions. 
These  add  nothing  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  but 
only  guard  it  from  ambiguities.  The  arguments 
and  illustrations  which  they  give  are  not  the  proper 
objects  of  the  subscription.  All  that  is  to  be  de- 
termined is  the  true  meaning  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  As  the  entire  principle  of  Confessional 
subscription,  according  to  which  Confessions,  as 
contracts,  are  to  be  understood  only  in  the  sense 
given  them  by  those  who  first  published  them,  has 
been  so  often  violated  with  respect  to  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  it  becomes  necessary  for  the  Church  to 
know,  with  respect  to  each  of  its  ministers,  as  to 
what  is  the  construction  which  he  puts  upon  it. 
Hence  the  Apology,  the  Smalcald  Articles,  the 
Catechisms  of  Luther  and  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
are  adopted  as  consistent  exhibitions  and  defences 
of  the  doctrines  taught  in  the  Fundamental  Con- 
fession. The  last  of  these  "Principles,"  therefore, 
is: 

"  IX.  In  thus  formally  accepting  and  acknowledging  the  un- 
altered Augsburg  Confession,  we  declare  our  conviction  that 
the  other  Confessions  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  in- 
asmuch as  they  set  forth  none  other  than  its  system  of  doctrine, 
and  articles  of  faith,  are  of  necessity  pure  and  Scriptural." 


OF  THE  GENERAI.  COUNCIL*.  I05 

This  sentence  must  be  placed  alongside  of  Prin- 
ciple VII  above  given.  By  ' '  other  Confessions  of 
the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,"  those  are 
meant  "which  sincerely  hold  and  truthfully  con- 
fess the  doctrines  of  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession." Any  one  familiar  with  the  Lutheran 
''  Church  Orders,"  whose  confession  has  been  made 
the  standard  of  the  "Common  Service "  by  General 
Synod,  General  Council  and  United  Synod,  can 
give  an  account  of  the  doctrinal  formulas  which 
are  included  in  most  of  them,  intended  to  promote 
the  pure  teaching  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  in  the  respective  Lutheran  countries 
for  which  the  "  Orders  "  were  prepared.  They  are 
examples  of  the  "other  Confessions."  All  such 
Confessions,  then,  as  harmonize  with  the  doctrines 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  General  Council 
acknowledges  as  "of  necessity  pure  and  Scrip- 
tural." All  Confessions,  whether  of  the  Lutheran 
name  or  not,  that  do  not  harmonize  therewith,  it 
rejects  and  condemns. 

"  Preeminent  among  such  accordant,  pure  and  Scriptural 
statements  of  doctrine,  by  their  intrinsic  excellence,  by  the 
great  and  necessary  ends  for  which  they  were  prepared,  by 
their  historical  position,  and  by  the  general  judgment  of  the 
Church,  are  these:  the  Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
the  Smalcald  Articles,  the  Catechisms  of  Luther  and  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  all  of  which  are,  with  the  unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession,  in  the  perfect  harmony  of  one  and  the 
same  Scriptural  faith." 

This  reference  to  the   full  body   of  Confessions 


Io6       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES  AND   USAGES 

contained  in  the  ''Book  of  Concord"  is  intended 
for  the  ministry,  and  not  for  the  laity.  It  is  under- 
stood that  greater  demands  must  be  made  of  a 
public  teacher  than  of  private  members,  of  pro- 
fessors of  theology  than  of  pastors  ;  just  as  in  civil 
life,  only  those  "learned  in  the  law"  are  compe- 
tent for  positions  as  judges,  or  even  as  attorneys, 
and,  therefore,  must  be  subjected  to  a  special  ex- 
amination. It  is  presupposed  that  every  candi- 
date for  the  Lutheran  ministry  has  spent  sufficient 
time  in  preparation  for  his  work  to  learn  the 
history  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
in  their  relation  to  subsequent  controversies  and  to 
be  ready  to  declare  where  a  statement  of  the  results 
of  those  controversies  can  be  found. 

Taking  the  fullest  of  these  Confessions,  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  as  an  example,  we  may  briefly 
review  its  office  and  significance,  i.  It  teaches  that 
consistency  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  requires  us,  on  the  one  hand,  to  reject 
the  view  that,  since  the  fall,  man's  nature  is  sin, 
and  on  the  other,  to  teach  that  it  is  not  sin,  but  sin- 
ful. Who  will  dispute  the  correctness  of  this  teach- 
ing? Who  would  defend,  as  a  true  adherent  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  one  who  would  teach  that  the 
nature  that  Christ  assumed  was  in  itself  sin  ? 
There  is  here  no  addition  to  the  doctrines  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession;  but  only  an  application  of 
one  of  these  doctrines  to  a  stated  controversy. 
a.   It  teaches  the  complete  inability  of  unregener- 


OF   THE   GENERAL  COUNCIL.  lO? 

ate  man  in  spiritual  things,  and  that  conversion  is 
entirely  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Who  that 
accepts  Article  XVIII  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
can  decide  otherwise?  Here  again  there  is  no- 
thing but  the  application  of  a  doctrine  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  to  a  stated  controversy.  3.  It 
teaches  that  the  righteousness  which  avails  before 
God  for  our  forgiveness,  is  only  that  which  Christ 
wrought  for  us  in  his  divinely  human  person,  and 
that  this  righteousness  is  received  only  by  faith, 
and  that  faith  is  not  mere  historical  knowledge, 
but  a  divinely  wrought  energy  in  man.  Can  any 
one  who  has  studied  the  Augsburg  Confession  de- 
tect in  this  any  inconsistency  with  its  doctrines  ? 
Again  we  have  only  the  application  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession  to  stated  controversies. 
4.  Good  works  inevitably  follow  faith  in  Christ, 
and  such  an  expression  as  that  "they  are  injurious 
to  salvation  "  should  be  condemned.  5.  The  Law 
convicts  of  sin;  the  Gospel  alone  brings  grace  and 
pardon.  6.  The  Law  has  three  uses:  (a)  For  out- 
ward discipline;  (b)  to  convict  of  sin;  (c)  as  a  rule 
of  life  to  the  regenerate.  7.  The  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ  are  truly  present  with  the  bread  and  wine 
in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  are  orally  received, 
not  in  a  natural,  but  in  a  supernatural  and  sac- 
ramental manner  by  all  who  partake,  so  as  to 
strengthen  the  faith  of  even  the  weakest  of  be- 
lieving communicants,  and  to  bring  judgment 
upon  impenitent  and  unbelieving  communicants. 


Io8       DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND   USAGES 

8.  The  human  nature  of  Christ  by  its  union  with 
the  divine  actually  participates  in  the  power  and 
majesty  of  the  divine  nature;  and  although,  during 
his  humiliation,  the  human  nature  abstained  from 
the  full  use  of  these  communicated  gifts,  since  it 
is  exalted  to  the  Right  Hand  of  God,  the  human 
nature  now  fully  exercises  all  that  the  divine  im- 
parts to  it.  This  is  only  a  somewhat  more  ex- 
plicit statement  of  what  is  taught  in  Article  III  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession.  9.  Christ's  descent  to 
hell  belongs  to  his  triumph.  How  this  occurred 
should  not  be  investigated:  like  all  other  mysteries, 
its  solution  should  be  awaited  until  the  next  world. 
10.  The  Church  of  God  of  every  time  and  place  has 
the  power,  according  to  circumstances,  to  change 
its  ceremonies  in  such  manner  as  is  most  edify- 
ing; ceremonies  not  commanded  in  Holy  Scripture 
are  in  themselves  no  part  of  the  service  of  God ;  but 
in  time  of  persecution,  matters  which  in  them- 
selves are  indifferent,  may,  because  of  their  re- 
lations, become  essential.  This  is  simply  a  repe- 
tion  and  application  of  Article  XXVI  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.  11.  The  doctrine  concerning 
election  must  be  learned  not  from  the  secret  will  of 
God,  but  from  the  Gospel,  and  every  element  in- 
cluded in  the  way  of  salvation  taught  in  the  Gos- 
pel enters  into  the  decree  of  election.  This  is 
mentioned  already  in  Article  V.  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  12.  The  last  article  groups  togetlier  the 
rejection  of  numerous  false  propositions.     We  ask: 


OF  THE   GENERAL   COUNCIL.  I09 

Is  it  consistent  with  the  Augsburg  Confesion,  or 
is  it  not,  to  teach  "  Christ  did  not  assume  body  and 
blood  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  but  brought  them 
witli  him  from  heaven?"  Is  it  adding  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession  to  say  plainly  that  such  is 
not  the  teaching  of  those  who  subscribe  it  ?  Or 
what  of  the  second  error  condemned:  "Christ  is 
not  true  God,  but  only  has  more  gifts  than  any 
other  man?"  Or  the  third:  ''Our  righteousness 
before  God  consists  in  renewal  and  our  own  god- 
liness?" Or  the  fourth:  "  Unbaptized  children  are 
not  sinners  before  God  ?"  Or  the  fifth:  "Children 
should  not  be  baptized  until  they  have  attained 
their  reason?"  Some  one  advances  the  opinion: 
"That  is  no  true  Christian  congregation  wherein 
sinners  are  still  found,"  and  insists  that,  according 
to  his  interpretation  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
such  a  view  is  not  condemned,  and,  therefore,  he 
must  have  freedom  as  a  Lutheran  minister  to  pro- 
claim it.  Dare  the  churches  which  profess  the 
Augsburg  Confession  be  hindered  from  being  faith- 
ful to  their  trust  in  framing  an  explicit  declaration 
whereby  their  condemnation  of  such  error  may  be 
known  ?  or  are  they  disloyal  to  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession in  so  doing?  Or  whenever  some  specific 
error,  either  in  doctrine  or  morals,  arises  that 
threatens  to  overthrow  the  faith,  or  at  least  to  dis- 
turb and  confuse  Christian  people,  is  it  not  rather 
the  plain  duty  of  the  professed  teachers  of  the 
Church  to  sound  the  note  of  alarm  against  it,  even 


no       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

though  they  have  to  use  somewhat  different  phrase- 
ology from  that  of  the  Church's  fundamental  Con- 
fession ? 

The  General  Council,  by  this  proposition,  in  no 
way  questions  the  Lutheran  character  of  those 
who  actually  hold  to  and  firmly  maintain  all 
the  doctrines  of  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, even  though  they  may  have  some  difficul- 
ties concerning  the  policy  of  the  ecclesiastical 
endorsement  of  the  other  Confessions;  but,  at  the 
same  time,  it  indicates  that  the  only  hope  of  abid- 
ing harmony  is  found,  in  not  ignoring  the  experi- 
ence through  which  the  Lutheran  Church  has 
passed  in  maintaining  the  doctrines  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  but  in  keeping  ever  in  mind  the 
application  of  these  doctrines  that  had  to  be  made 
by  the  other  Confessions,  in  order  to  save  the  Luth- 
eran Church  from  hopeless  discord  and  confusion. 

In  so  doing  it  entered  no  new  path,  but 
followed  the  consistent  development  of  Lutheran 
Theology,  as  exhibited  not  only  in  the  great 
theologians  of  our  Church,  but  especially  in  such 
earnest  and  well-matured  practical  Christians  and 
Church-organizers  as  Arndt  and  Spener,  August 
Hermann  Francke  and  Henry  Melchior  Muhlen- 
berg, who  clearly  recognized  the  new  demands 
made  by  new  issues  forced  upon  the  Lutheran 
Church,  in  the  confession  of  the  Scriptural  faith 
of  Augsburg  in  the  ampler  Confessions. 

Among  these  issues,  one  of  the  principal  arose 


OF  THE  GENERAI.  COUNCIL.  Ill 

from  the  fact  that  the  Peace  of  Augsburg  of  1555, 
confirmed  by  the  Peace  of  Westphalia  of  1648,  guar- 
anteed to  Protestants  freedom  of  religious  worship 
upon  the  sole  condition  of  subscription  to  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.  Repeatedly  Reformed  theologians 
and  princes,  who  protested  against  the  distinctive 
doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  signed  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  and  were  allowed  the  rights 
guaranteed  Lutherans,  upon  the  plea  of  a  general, 
but  not  of  a  specific  agreement  with  it.  The  Con- 
fession thus  lost  its  place  as  a  doctrinal  test  among 
Lutherans.  When  the  mark  placed  upon  a  house 
in  "The  Arabian  Nights"  was  industriously  copied 
upon  all  the  houses  in  the  neighborhood  by  enter- 
prising boys,  it  ceased  to  be  a  distinguishing  char- 
acter. The  signatures  to  the  Confession  of  many 
who  did  not  accept  all  its  doctrines  rendered  every 
signature  doubtful.  It  was  for  such  reason  that 
Arndt,  in  his  dying  testimony,  most  solemnly  con- 
fessed "the  true  religion  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord," and  Spener  wrote  an  especial  treatise  in 
defence  of  the  same  Formula,  and  the  Halle  Fac- 
ulty declared  that  they  held  with  absolute  firmness 
to  all  the  Symbolical  Books,  and  Muhlenberg 
challenged  his  accusers  to  find  anything  that  he 
had  said  or  written  in  conflict  with  them. 

The  General  Council  has  simply  placed  itself 
unequivocally  upon  the  foundation  laid  in  the  first 
Constitution  of  the  Mother  Synod,  the  Ministerium 
of  Pennsylvania  (ch.   vi.    §   2):    "Every  minister 


112        DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES  AND   USAGES 

professes  that  he  holds  to  the  word  of  God  and  our 
Symbolical  Books."  The  revision  in  1792,  after 
Muhlenberg's  death,  erased  this  provision,  thus 
involving  later  generations  in  untold  difficulties 
and  dangers  from  doctrinal  indifferentism,  until  a 
return  was  made  to  the  firmer  and  clearer  basis  of 
the  Fathers  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this 
country. 


Following  these  "  Principles  of  Faith  "  are  those 
of  ''Church  Polity."  They  may  be  briefly  out- 
lined as  follows: 

The  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  Supreme 
Head  of  the  Church,  can  be  delegated  to  no  man  or 
body  of  men  on  earth.  All  the  power  which  the 
Church  can  exercise  is  through  the  administration 
of  the  Word  and  sacraments,  and  is  obligatory 
upon  its  members  only  according  to  the  degree  in 
which  it  is  faithful  to  Holy  Scripture.  The  con- 
gregations are  the  primary  bodies  through  which 
this  power  is  normally  exercised.  Congregations 
may  act  through  representatives  in  Synods,  and 
these  Synods  again  in  a  General  Body.  The  de- 
cisions of  Synods  command  respect,  chiefly  because 
they  are  presumed  to  be  guarded  by  constitutional 
provisions,  which  give  greater  probability  of  cor- 
rectness than  those  of  any  single  congregations  or 
individuals.  They  are  constantly  subject  to  revi- 
sion and  appeal  by  the  congregations.  Synods  can 
deal  with  each  other  only  as  Synods,  and  the  official 


OF  THE   GENERAL  COUNCIL.  113 

record  must  be  accepted  as  evidence  of  the  doctrinal 
position.  Synods  are  organized  to  maintain  sound 
doctrine,  settle  controversies,  regulate  the  externals 
of  worship  according  to  the  New  Testament,  and 
in  keeping  with  the  liberty  of  the  Church,  and 
make  provision  for  carrying  on  the  Church's  work 
in  every  department  of  beneficent  labor. 

In  the  "Constitution  for  Congregations,"  which 
claimed  the  attention  of  the  General  Council  for  a 
number  of  years,  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion and  the  Small  Catechism  alone  are  expressly 
mentioned  as  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  congre- 
gation, while  the  pastor  is  obligated  besides  to  the 
Apology,  Large  Catechism,  Smalcald  Articles  and 
Formula  of  Concord.  The  Lay  Eldership  is 
omitted,  the  Deacons  being,  with  the  Pastor  or 
Pastors,  the  only  members  of  the  Church  Council. 
This  provision,  however,  has  not  been  universally 
adopted,  the  Lay  Eldership  introduced  by  Muhlen- 
berg still  maintaining  a  firm  hold,  especially  in 
Pennsylvania.  The  Church  Year  and  its  festivals 
are  recognized  in  the  same  document,  as  well  as 
catechetical  instruction,  and  a  previous  notice  on 
the  part  of  those  desiring  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

Concerning  Chiliasm,  the  General  Council  de- 
clared at  Pittsburg,  in  1868,  that  ''it  has  neither 
had,  nor  would  consent  to  have,  fellowship  with  any 
Synod  which  tolerates  the  'Jewish  opinions  '  con- 
demned in  the  XVII  Article  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession." 

8 


114       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

In  the  same  declaration  it  warned  against  **all 
societies  for  moral  and  religious  ends  which  do  not 
rest  upon  the  supreme  authority  of  God's  Word,  or 
recognize  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  true  God,  and 
the  only  Mediator,"  "or  which  assume  to  them- 
selves what  God  has  given  to  His  Church  and  its 
ministers,"  or  "require  undefined  obligations  to 
be  assumed  by  oath."  In  the  Swedish  Augustana 
Synod,  members  of  secret  societies  are  excluded 
from  the  communion  of  the  Church ;  in  the  other 
Synods  the  testimony  against  them  is  more  or  less 
pronounced,  although  Church  discipline  against 
them  is  rigidly  exercised  only  in  a  few  places. 

Concerning  "Exchange  of  Pulpits,"  the  same 
declaration  forbids  the  admission  to  our  pulpits  of 
any  man,  "whether  of  the  Lutheran  name  or  of 
any  other,  of  whom  there  is  just  reason  to  doubt 
whether  he  will  preach  the  pure  truth  of  God's 
Word  as  taught  in  the  Confession  of  our  Church." 
Concerning  the  preaching  by  Lutheran  ministers 
in  other  pulpits,  the  Pittsburgh  Declaration  of  1868 
was  reaffirmed  at  Philadelphia  in  1885,  and  was 
rediscussed  at  Pittsburgh  in  1889.     According  to  it: 

"Lutheran  ministers  may  properly  preach  wherever  there  is 
an  opening  in  the  pulpit  of  other  churches,  unless  the  circum- 
stances imply,  or  seem  to  imply,  a  fellowship  with  error  or 
schism,  or  a  restriction  on  the  unreserved  expression  of  the 
whole  counsel  of  God," 

The  Akron  Declaration  of  1872  was  not  intended 
as  an  ample  exhibition  of  the  entire  subject  of  Pul- 


OF  THE   GENERAL   COUNCIL.  I15 

pit  and  Altar  Fellowship,  but  simply  to  state  cer- 
tain general  principles  which  seemed  to  be  self- 
evident,  making  no  new  rule,  but  simply  stating 
what  was  generally  understood  to  be  the  practice 
in  all  our  Churches. 

"I.  The  rule  is  :  Lutheran  pulpits  are  for  Lutheran  ministers 
only.     Lutheran  altars  are  for  Lutheran  communicants  only. 

"  II.  The  exceptions  to  the  rule  belong  to  the  sphere  of  privi- 
lege, not  of  right. 

"III.  The  determination  of  the  exceptions  is  to  be  made  in 
consonance  with  these  principles  by  the  conscientious  judgment 
of  pastors,  as  the  cases  arise." 

This  means  that  no  one  is  to  be  admitted  either 
to  the  pulpit  or  the  altar,  unless  the  Church,  or  its 
oflBcers  acting  for  it,  are  satisfied  as  to  his  fitness 
and  preparation.  The  responsibility  in  both  cases 
is  so  great  that  there  should  be  no  encouragement 
of  the  setting  aside  of  the  Church's  provisions  for 
guarding  these  two  most  holy  places.  No  denial 
of  either  the  Christian  character  or  the  ministerial 
standing  of  any  one  who  w'ould  be  excluded  by  the 
strict  enforcement  of  such  rule,  is  intended.  It 
simply  means  that  the  Lutheran  Church  and  no 
other  communion  is  responsible  for  those  who 
preach  and  commune  in  a  Lutheran  church.  For 
a  number  of  years  it  was  a  question  of  controversy 
in  the  General  Council,  whether  the  action  at 
Galesburg  in  1875,  which  declared  the  Rule  Scrip- 
tural, abrogated  or  not  the  exceptions  provided  for 
at  Akron.  The  General  Council  at  Pittsburgh,  in 
1889,  declared  that  the  two  declarations  were  ex- 


Il6        DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND  USAGES 

plaiiatory  of  each  other,  and,  therefore,  that  the 
principle  of  exceptions  to  be  made  by  pastors  as 
circumstances  arise,  still  stands.  The  exceptions, 
however,  must  be  such  as  carry  out  the  spirit  of 
the  Rule. 

Closely  connected  with  this  is  the  definition 
made  at  Lancaster,  O.,  in  1870,  of  ''fundamental 
doctrines,"  in  which  the  distinction  is  drawn  be- 
tween "doctrines  which  are  fundamental  to  the 
existence  of  Christianity,"  and  those  "which  are 
fundamental  to  the  complete  integrity  of  Chris- 
tianity." The  "fundamental  errorists"  to  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  Lord's  Table  are  declared  to  be 
"those  who  wilfully,  wickedly  and  persistently 
desert,  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  Christian  faith." 


There  has  been  no  controversy  within  the  Gen- 
eral Council  on  the  subject  of  election,  and,  there- 
fore, no  official  declaration  by  the  Council  on  the 
subject  that  has  so  largely  occupied  the  attention 
of  a  number  of  the  Synods.  An  "Opinion"  was, 
however,  published  in  1884  by  the  Philadelphia 
Faculty,  declaring  that  the  terms  ^^ intuitu  Jidei^^^ 
^^ex  praevisa  fide^^  do  not  present  a  satisfactory 
solution  of  the  theological  problem,  but  that  the 
condemnation  of  the  use  of  such  terms,  when  ex- 
plained with  the  limitations  placed  upon  them  by 
our  Lutheran  dogmaticians,  is  not  justified  by  the 
Confession  of  our  Church.  It  is  the  general  teach- 
ing that  faith  holds  the  same  relation  to  election 


OF  THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  117 

as  to  justification,  and  that,  as  we  are  justified,  not 
on  account  of  faith,  so  also  we  are  elected  not  on 
account  of  faith;  but  that  we  are  both  elected  and 
justified  with  respect  to,  or  through  the  merits  of 
Christ  apprehended  by  faith,  or  with  respect  to  or 
through  faith  apprehending  the  merits  of  Christ. 
Man  can  in  no  way  prepare  himself  for  divine 
grace,  or  even  co-operate,  by  his  own  powers,  with 
divine  grace,  when  it  approaches  him.  Faith  itself 
is  entirely  the  gift  of  God,  brought  to  man  and 
wrought  in  man,  through  the  means  of  grace. 
Man's  will  is  free  to  resist  this  grace  at  any  stage. 
If  man  be  saved,  he  is  saved  altogether  by  God's 
grace;  if  he  be  lost,  he  is  lost  altogether  by  his  own 
sin  and  fault.  That  one  accepts  and  another  re- 
jects divine  grace,  is  not  due  to  a  difference  made 
between  the  two  by  God's  will.  The  universal 
grace  of  God  is  made  particular  by  the  obstinate 
resistance  of  those  who  repel  the  Holy  Spirit.  In 
those  who  accept  divine  grace,  even  the  power  to 
cease  to  resist  is  a  special  gift  and  endowment  of 
the  Spirit.  What  we  call  in  time  justification,  is, 
with  respect  to  the  eternity  that  precedes  time, 
election.  God's  foreknowledge  of  the  justifica- 
tion of  individual  believers,  is  his  election,  with 
only  this  difference,  that,  as  the  will  is  impelled 
by  no  irresistible  grace,  its  liability  to  fall  con- 
tinues to  the  end  of  this  life,  and  hence  justifi- 
cation may  be  only  temporary  ;  but  with  respect 
to    those   who   remain    in   a   justified    state   until 


Il8       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

the  end  of  this  life,  election  and  justification  coin- 
cide. Election  is  thus  the  pretemporal  record  of 
the  justification  of  those  who  die  in  Christ.  The 
entire  tendency  among  us  is  to  follow  Luther's 
latter  course,  viz.,  when  troubled  with  thoughts 
concerning  election  to  find  the  answer  by  a  con- 
sideration of  what  is  involved  in  justification. 
Mysteries  enough  still  remain,  into  the  reasons  for 
which  we  make  no  attempt  to  inquire. 


The  Language  Question  has  been  a  prominent 
feature  in  all  the  discussions  and  work  of  the 
Council.  The  German,  the  Swedish  and  the  Eng- 
lish have  all  a  good  representation  at  all  its  meet- 
ings, with  an  occasional  addition  of  the  Norwe- 
gian. The  Germans  have  preponderated  in  num- 
bers; the  English  have  very  largely  shaped  its  leg- 
islation and  led  in  its  debates,  while  the  Swedes 
have  held  the  balance  of  power.  At  the  urgent 
request  of  the  Swedes,  the  English  has  been  made 
the  official  language  of  the  Council,  any  one  who 
uses  another  language,  except  from  clear  necessity, 
being  in  danger  of  a  call  to  order  from  the  Swedish 
brethren.  At  Chicago,  in  1869,  the  Council  de- 
clared that  "it  is  just  as  possible  to  hold  the  Luth- 
eran faith  and  observe  Lutheran  usages  in  the 
English  language  as  in  the  German;"  that  "the 
pastors  and  people  of  our  German  and  Scandina- 
vian churches  should  cheerfully  and  conscien- 
tiously promote  the  transfer  into  English  Evangel- 


OF  THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL  II9 

ical  Lutheran  churches,  of  all  those  who  do  not 
understand  the  preaching  of  the  Word  of  God  in 
the  language  of  their  fathers,"  and  where  there  is 
no  English  Lutheran  church,  "encouraging  the 
necessary  steps  as  soon  as  possible  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  English  Mission  Sunday-schools  and 
Churches." 


Always  ready  to  co-operate  with  other  Lutheran 
Bodies,  the  General  Council  offers  the  right  of 
representation  and  participation  in  its  discussions 
to  any  Synod  adopting  the  "Fundamental  Princi- 
ples," even  although  such  Body  ask  no  organic 
union  with  the  Council.  In  all  negotiations  looking 
towards  co-operation,  those  charged  to  represent 
her  have  been  reminded  of  these  principles  as  a  basis 
of  all  they  have  been  authorized  to  present  or  con- 
cede. No  General  Body  or  Synod  or  individual  re- 
pudiating or  attacking  the  Confessions  of  the 
Church,  or  that,  while  formally  subscribing  them, 
fails  to  maintain  and  teach  tlie  doctrines  therein  set 
forth,  or  that  defends  and  apologizes  for  their  as- 
sailants, can  be  regarded  as  within  the  sphere  where 
co-operation  is  in  any  sense  practical.  This  has 
been  made  prominent  in  all  conferences  and  deal- 
ings, particularly  with  the  General  Synod,  from  the 
action  at  Fort  Wayne  in  1893  (Minutes,  p.  89)  to 
that  at  Buffalo  in   1906   (Minutes,  pp.  200  sqq.). 


I20  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

But  every  proposition  that  offers  a  reasonable  hope 
of  securing  a  clearer  understanding  between  the 
separated  Bodies,  a  non-interference  with  each 
others'  work,  or  even  of  active  and  well-regulated 
co-operation,  has  met  with  a  uniformly  cordial  re- 
sponse. In  the  movement  for  a  Common  Service, 
first  published  in  1888,  and  that  for  a  Common 
Book  of  Worship,  towards  w^iich  the  General  Coun- 
cil has  been  laboring  since  1895  (Minutes,  p.  60), 
and  which  is  now  fast  nearing  completion  (1914), 
in  the  conferences  between  the  Boards  of  Deacon- 
esses, joint  understandings  between  the  Publication 
Houses,  and  the  co-operation  between  the  Foreign 
Mission  Boards  and  between  their  missionaries  on 
the  foreign  field,  as  well  as  in  efforts  to  prevent 
friction  in  the  starting  of  new  congregations,  much 
has  been  accomplished. 


The  Liturgical  activity  of  the  General  Council 
has  been  inherited  from  her  oldest  Synod,  the 
Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania.  When  the  General 
Council  w^as  formed,  the  English  Church-Book  was 
almost  finished.  It  had  just  been  published  at  the 
second  session  of  the  Council  in  1868.  It  was  very 
generally  introduced  into  the  town  and  city  and 
many  of  the  country  churches,  with  some  varia- 
tion, however,  as  to  the  amount  of  the  service  used. 


OF  THE  GENERAL   COUNCIL  121 

Prejudice  gradually  vanished,  and  the  Church-Book 
grew  every  year  more  and  more  deeply  into  the 
affections  of  the  people,  proving,  wherever  intro- 
duced, a  powerful  educator.  The  German  Kirchen- 
hiich  followed.  This,  however,  encountered  more 
opposition,  for  several  reasons :  It  was  difficult  to 
replace  the  familiar  hymns  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod's  book  by  the  more  sober,  but  severely  clas- 
sical hymns  of  the  new  book.  The  opposition  of 
Southern  Germans  to  a  full  liturgical  order  was 
difficult  to  overcome.  It  has,  however,  been  also 
working  its  way  constantly  towards  a  united  use. 
When  the  "Common  Order  of  Service"  was  pre- 
pared, the  instructions  which  guided  the  Joint 
Committee  being  the  same  as  those  according  to 
which  the  Cliurch-Book  liad  been  compiled,  led  to 
essentially  the  same  result. 

The  Service  is  prized  especially  for  its  clear  con- 
fession of  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  in  due  pro- 
portion, in  regular  order,  and  with  such  admirable 
comprehensiveness  as  to  present  throughout  the 
year  the  whole  counsel  of  God.  It  is  of  itself  a 
creed  of  the  people,  according  to  the  rule  of  St. 
Augustine :  Lex  supplicandi  est  lex  credendi,  giving 
simplest  and  most  popular  expression  to  the  doc- 
trines more  amply  stated  and  defended  in  the  for- 
mal and  fuller  Confessions.  But  it  is  far  more  than 
a  creed.  The  plan  of  salvation  is  not  minutely  dis- 
sected, as  has  to  be  done  in  accurate  dogmatic  defi- 


122  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

nitions,  framed  for  the  schools,  but  is  presented  in 
all  its  simplicity  and  concrete  reality.  All  its  various 
parts  center  around  Christ,  presenting  Him  in  all 
His  offices,  in  both  His  states,  in  the  fulness  of  His 
work,  and  in  all  His  relations  to  the  sinful  and  sor- 
rowing, the  penitent  and  believing,  the  afflicted  and 
tempted,  the  dying  and  the  glorified.  Its  lessons 
and  responses  and  collects  and  chants  are  intended 
simply  to  carry  the  devotions  of  the  worshippers 
to  the  Throne  of  Grace,  as  far  as  possible,  in  the 
very  words  of  Holy  Scripture.  Wherever  intro- 
duced it  is  affectionately  cherished  by  the  congre- 
gations, who  could  scarcely  be  persuaded  to  become 
accustomed  to  the  coldness  and  formality  and  in- 
coherency,  affording  little  food  for  the  heart,  that 
so  often  characterizes  a  Service  without  a  fixed 
order. 

Nevertheless,  our  churches  most  devoted  to  the 
Church-Book,  are  not  so  bound  to  the  appointed 
lessons  and  prayers,  as  not,  under  peculiar  and  ex- 
ceptional circumstances,  to  vary  or  depart  from 
them,  or  even  to  entirely  dispense  with  them. 
Where  the  prayers  provided  do  not  meet  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  worshippers,  there  is  no  diffi- 
culty in  finding  others  that  are  suitable.  Where 
the  people  are  unable  to  use  a  full  Lutheran  Ser- 
vice to  edification,  no  attempt  is  made  to  force  it 
upon  them.  The  general  feeling  is  that  the  man  is 
to  be  pitied  who  is  so  bound  to  a  Liturgy  as  to  be 


OF  THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL  1 23 

unable  to  find  any  edification  except  in  a  prayer 
that  is  read ;  but  that  he  is  equally  to  be  pitied  who 
can  find  no  edification  in  the  fixed  prayers  upon 
which  the  yearnings  of  the  hearts  of  millions  of 
God's  people  have  ascended  to  Heaven  for  many 
centuries. 

In  later  years  there  has  been  a  greater  centrali- 
zation of  the  practical  work  of  the  Council.  As 
there  was  some  apprehension  on  the  part  of  the 
Swedish  Augustana  Synod,  whose  territory  covers 
the  whole  country  and  which  has  a  peculiar  work 
to  perform  that  cannot  be  transferred  without  in- 
jury to  the  cause  it  represents  to  any  General  Body, 
lest,  in  this  centralizing  process,  the  rights  of 
Synods,  guaranteed  in  the  Fundamental  Principles 
of  Church  Polity,  might  be  compromised,  the  fol- 
lowing action  was  taken  at  Lancaster  in  191 1  (Min- 
utes, pp.  223  sq. )  : 

"That  the  General  Council  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  its 
fundamental  principles  of  faith  and  church  polity  are  by  the 
very  terms  of  the  union  of  Synods  with  it  absolutely  unalter- 
able. The  General  Council  stands  or  falls  according  to  its 
agreement  with  or  its  dissent  from  these  principles.  .  .  .  That 
wherever  any  Synods  transfer  to  the  General  Council  the 
administration  of  any  of  their  interests  which  they  believe 
can  be  more  efficiently  administered  by  a  policy  of  unification, 
the  constitutional  rights  of  all  other  Synods  that  do  not  deem 
it  advisable  to  adopt  the  same  policy  shall  be  safeguarded  and 
respected,  and  such  Synods  shall  be  regarded  as  no  less  loyal 
to  the  General  Council.  .  .  .  That  this  General  Council  now, 
as  at  its  foundation,  will  welcome  to  membership  in  its  con- 


124  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

ventions  the  representatives  of  all  Synods  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  America  that  profess  with  us  the  same  principles 
of  faith  and  church  polity,  and  guarantee  to  them  the  preserva- 
tion of  their  own  identity  and  provisions  of  Synodical  con- 
stitution as  set  forth  in  the  constitution  of  this  body  and  in 
their  own  Synodical  constitutions  as  agreed  upon  at  their 
admission." 


The  General  Council  is  only  at  the  beginning  of 
its  work.  Much  time  has  been  spent  in  laying  the 
foundation  broadly  and  deeply,  and  in  answering 
questions  that  must  be  understood  before  a  basis 
of  widely-extended,  solid  and  harmonious  work 
can  be  reached.  Her  embarrassments  have  arisen 
largely  from  the  comprehensiveness  of  her  aims. 
In  the  endeavor  to  further,  as  far  as  possible,  union 
among  all  Lutherans  in  this  country,  elements  have 
been  brought  together  at  her  conventions  that,  ex- 
cept for  the  common  faith,  were  largely  strange  to 
one  another.  The  very  circumstances  which  Presi- 
dent Bassler  noted  at  the  first  convention,  as  indi- 
cating a  remarkable  Providence,  have  brought  cor- 
responding difficulties.     He  said : 

"That  so  many  persons  should  come  together — persons  who 
have  been  educated  in  different  institutions,  under  diverse  in- 
fluences— even  in  different  countries,  and  using  different  lan- 
guages— and  yet  should  be  able  to  see  eye  to  eye,  so  far  as  to 
use  the  same  words  in  declaring  their  apprehension  of  God's 
Word,  e.  g.,  in  the  confession  of  their  faith ;  and  not  only  to 
use  the  same  words,  but  to  use  these  words  in  one  and  the 
same  sense,  is  certainly  the  work  of  God's  Holy  Spirit." 


OF  THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL  1 25 

But  these  advantages  have  been  partially  offset 
by  the  fact  that  it  requires  time  to  make  such  a  body 
thoroughly  homogeneous.  Christian  men  must  not 
only  have  the  same  faith,  and  subscribe  to  the  same 
Confession,  but  must  learn  to  know  and  understand 
one  another  by  a  long  experience,  to  make  due  al- 
lowances for  each  others'  faults,  and  to  appreciate 
the  graces  of  the  Spirit  that  often  abound  in,  and 
beyond,  and  above  the  sometimes  more  visible 
works  of  the  flesh.  If  the  entire  Lutheran  Church 
of  America  is  ever  to  be  united,  it  will  pass  through 
the  very  same  experience.  Activity  and  earnestness, 
within  one  organization,  of  those  who  have  been 
previously  separated,  mean  discussion,  delay,  and 
sometimes  even  considerable  friction,  before  a  thor- 
ough understanding  is  reached.  John  Damascenus, 
the  great  theologian  of  the  Greek  Church,  has  well 
said:  (Tuv^£(Tt?dp/rjfxd;(7j?,i.  e.,  ''Union  is  the  beginning 
of  controversy."  The  question  that  is  often  to  be 
decided  is  as  to  whether  the  understanding  should 
be  reached  before  or  after  union;  i.  e..  Shall  there 
ever  be  union  without  unity?  The  General  Coun- 
cil had  no  choice  to  make.  With  a  sincere  desire 
to  have  all  Lutherans  in  America  not  only  dwelling 
together  in  peace,  but  also  vigorously  prosecuting 
the  great  work  opening  to  our  Church  in  this  coun- 
try, the  efforts  were  made  to  promote  this  end,  as 
Providence  pointed  the  way.  Never  has  her  har- 
mony been  greater  than  at  present ;  nor  is  this  har- 


126  DTSTINCTTVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

mony  at  the  expense  of  her  fidelity,  or  due  to  in- 
activity and  indifference.  But  her  future,  Hke  that 
of  the  entire  Lutheran  Church,  is  in  God's  hands; 
and  the  lot  of  the  entire  Church  may  be  read  in  the 
career  through  which  she  has  passed  and  is  passing. 


The  Synodical  Conference 

By  REV.  PROF.  F.  PIEPER 

[Preliminary  Remark.  Since  the  "distinctive 
doctrines  and  usages  of  the  Synodical  Conference  " 
are  based  upon  clearly  understood  general  truths 
and  principles,  the  author  of  this  treatise  has 
deemed  it  appropriate  to  introduce  the  presentation 
of  the  several  articles  here  discussed  by  a  state- 
ment of  the  underlying  principles.] 

OF  THE  CHURCH. 

IVhat  it  is.  The  Church,  in  the  proper  sense  of 
the  term,  is  the  aggregate  of  all  true  believers  in 
Christ.  All  those,  and  only  those  who  believe  in 
Christ,  are  members  of  the  Church.  Whoever  be- 
lieves in  Christ,  is  a  member  of  the  Church, 
whether  he  be  in  external  fellowship  with  an  or- 
thodox, or  in  external  union  with  a  heterodox  con- 
gregation, or  in  no  external  connection  wdth  any 
church  at  all.  On  the  other  hand,  whoever  does 
not  believe  in  Christ,  is  not  a  member  of  the  Church, 
although  he  be  a  person  of  good  external  standing 

(127) 


128       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES  AND   USAGES 

in  an  orthodox  congregation,  or  even  a  minister  or 
high  dignitary  in  it.  In  shorty  fatih  m  Christ  is  the 
all-decidiiig  factor  in  i^egard  to  chtirch-membership. 
The  wicked  and  the  hypocrites^  although  they  have 
^;r/^r;/^/ fellowship  with  the  Church,  form  no  part 
of  it.  The  Church  is  the  spiritual  body  of  Christ, 
the  "congregation  of  saints^''^  whose  hearts, 
through  faith  in  Christ,  are  ruled  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  whilst  all  unbelievers,  however  holy  in 
outward  appearance,  are  in  the  power  of  Satan,  and 
members  of  his  kingdom  (Eph.  ii.  2). 

In  order  to  maintain  the  true  conception  of  the 
Church,  what  is  necessarily  or  commonly  connected 
with  it  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  Church 
itself.  For  instance,  Christ  is  the  head  of  the 
Church,  but  not  the  Church  itself  the  Church 
being  His  spiritual  body  (Eph.  i.  22,  23).  Again, 
The  Word  of  God  and  the  Sacra^nents  are  neces- 
sarily connected  with  the  Church,  they  being  the 
seed  (i  Pet.  i.  23  ;  Mark  iv.  26,  27  ;  Titus  iii.  5,  6), 
and  the  bread  (John  vi.  51  compared  with  John 
viii.  31;  vi.  68;  i  Cor.  xii.  13),  and,  consequently, 
also  the  true  marks  of  the  Church,  but  they  are  not 
the  Church  itself  nor  part  of  it.  Finally,  Christians 
dwelling  together  in  the  same  place  are  botmd  to 
unite  also  in  external  fellowship  for  the  purpose  of 
preaching  and  hearing  the  Word  of  God,  etc.,  and 
they  7?iay  Qutev  into  a  larger  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion with  other  Churches,  but  no  external  ecclesi- 
astical organization    of  any  kind   is    the    Church 


OF  THE  SYNODICAL  CONFERENCE.  1 29 

itself,  or  part  of  it,  the  Church  being  "properly 
7tothing  else  than  the  congregation  of  all  believers 
and  saints"  (Augsb.  Conf.,  Art.  VIII).  The 
Church  is  not  a  mere  sum  of  ordi7tances^  institu- 
tions, ceremonies,  etc.,  but  the  great  spiritual  body 
of  me?t  believing  in  Christ. 

Importa7ice  of  this  doctrine.  It  is  of  great  im- 
portance to  retain  this  true  definition  of  the 
Church,  because  it  may  easily  be  shown  that  all 
errors  concerning  this  article  of  the  Christian 
faith  spring  from  forgetting  the  simple  truth  that 
the  Church  properly  is  ' '  7iothing  else  than  the  con- 
gregation of  believers."  Moreover,  by  retaining 
this  truth,  we  shall  not  content  ourselves  with  be- 
longing merely  to  the  external  communion  of  the 
Church,  but  we  shall  rather  earnestly  take  heed 
that  we  belong  to  the  internal  communion  of  saints, 
and  remain  therein  unto  our  end,  and  thus  in 
eternity.  Finally,  by  keeping  in  view  that  the 
Church  is  the  congregation  of  believers^  we  shall 
not,  for  the  purpose  of  building  and  extending  the 
Church,  resort  to  wrong  means,  such  as  temporal 
power,  external  force,  human  ordinances,  church- 
fairs,  church-fellowship  with  errorists;  for  by  such 
m.^3.ns  faith  ifi  Christ  is  neither  wrought  nor  pre- 
served, but,  on  the  contrary,  hindered  or  destroyed. 
Keeping  in  mind  that  the  Church  is  the  congrega- 
tion of  believers,  we  shall  rather  faithfully  and 
diligently  use  the  means  ordained  of  God,  which 
alone  produce  and  preserve  faith  in  Christ  in  the 
9 


130       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

hearts  of  men,  to  wit,  the  preaching  of  the  pure 
Gospel  and  the  right  administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments. The  stress  laid  on  the  ^^pure  doctrine"  or 
""^ptire  Gospel"  must  not  be  ridiculed,  since  the 
Gospel  generates  and  preserves  faith  only  so  far  as 
it  is  pure. 

The  Church  without  which  there  is  no  salvation. 
Of  the  Church  which  "is  the  great  body  of  true 
believers  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  from  the  rising 
of  the  sun  to  his  setting, ' '  the  proposition  is  true, 
that  there  is  no  salvation  without  the  Church  (extra 
ecclesiam  nulla  salus),  the  proposition  being  equiva- 
lent to  what  our  Lord  says:  "  He  that  believeth  on 
the  Son  hath  everlasting  life;  and  he  that  believeth 
not  the  Son,  shall  not  see  life  "  (John  iii.  36J. 

The  Church  not  confi^ted  within  the  particular 
orthodox  Churches  or  congregations.  The  Church 
without  which  there  is  no  salvation,  is  not  confined 
within  the  boundaries  of  the  orthodox  Churches, 
that  is,  of  those  particular  Churches  in  which  all 
the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith  are  taught  in 
their  purity ;  but  it  is  found  throughout  the  world 
in  those  ecclesiastical  communities  also  in  which, 
beside  errors,  so  much  of  the  saving  truth  is  taught 
that  true  faith  in  Christ  may  be  produced.  The  so- 
called  "  Missourians,"  although  emphasizing  the 
distinction  between  orthodox  and  heterodox 
Churches,  have  always  rejected  the  doctrine  that 
the  orthodox  Lutheran  Church  is  the  Church,  i.  e., 
the  Church  without  which  there  is  no  salvation. 


OF  THE  SYNODICAL  CONFERENCE.  1 31 

This  doctrine  they  hold  to  be  an  un-Lutheran,  yea, 
an  impious  doctrine,  as  it  overthrows  the  main 
article  of  the  Christian  religion,  the  article  that 
man  is  justified  and  saved  by  faith  in  Christ,  not- 
withstanding man's  shortcomings  in  knowledge 
and  life. 

The  Church  is^  and  always  remains^  in  this  life 
invisible. 

As  the  Church  is  nothing  else  than  the  congre- 
gation of  believers,  and  God  only,  the  searcher  of 
hearts,  knows  those  who  truly  believe,  it  is,  and 
always  remains,  in  this  life  invisible.  (Luke  xvii. 
20;  2  Tim.  ii.  19.)  The  Church,  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  term,  is  not  in  part  only  invisible,  in 
part,  however,  visible,  the  audible  and  visible 
means  of  grace  constituting  its  ''visible  side." 
What  is  necessarily  connected  with  the  Church,  is 
not  to  be  confounded  with  the  Church  itself.  Al- 
though wherever  the  Word  of  God  is  found,  we 
are  to  find  the  Church,  yet  the  Word  of  God  forms 
no  part  of  the  Church,  the  component  parts  of  the 
Church  being  only  the  believers.  This  may  be 
illustrated  by  an  example.  Man  cannot  live  with- 
out air  and  his  daily  bread.  But  the  air  and  the 
daily  bread  do  not  form  an  essential  part  of  ma7t. 
So  the  Church  lives  by  the  Word  of  God,  but  the 
Word  of  God  is  not  an  essential  part  of  the  Church. 
The  Church  itself,  therefore,  can  not  be  called 
visible  on  account  of  the  audible  and  visible  means 
of  grace. 


132       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

Universal  Church  and  particular  Churches. 

The  Scriptures  not  only  speak  of  the  07ie  Church 
(Matt.  xvi.  18;  Eph.  i,  22.  23),  but  frequently 
mention  Churches  in  the  plural,  e.  g,^  the  Churches 
oi  Asia^  i  Cor.  xvi.  19;  the  Churches  of  Macedonia^ 
2  Cor.  viii.  i;  the  Church  of  God  which  is  at 
Corinth^  I  Cor.  i.  2;  the  Church  which  was  at 
Jerusale77i^  Acts  viii.  i;  ''tell  it  unto  the  Church^''^ 
Matt,  xviii.  17.  It  is,  therefore,  in  accordance 
with  Scripture  that  we  speak  of  local  or  particular 
Churches.  But  the  relation  existing  between  the 
particular  churches  and  the  una  sancta  (universal 
Church)  ought  to  be  rightly  understood.  Men 
cannot,  like  God,  look  into  the  hearts,  nor  should 
they  try  to  do  so.  We,  therefore,  have  to  consider 
all  such  to  belong  to  the  particular  Church  as 
unite  with  us  in  the  profession  of  faith  and  do  not 
contradict  this  profession  by  an  ungodly  life.  It 
is  in  this  regard  that  the  particular  Churches  are 
called  visible  Churches.  But  we  do  not  on  this  ac- 
count set  up  two  Churches.  For  the  visible  par- 
ticular Church  is  a  Churchy  and  is  called  2,  Church 
and  has  the  privileges  of  a  Church  ("  the  power  of 
the  keys  ")  only  on  account  of  the  true  believers  that 
are  within  it.  The  particular  {i.  e.^  local)  Churches, 
therefore,  properly  speaking,  co7tsis t oi txweheWewexs 
only,  the  hypocrites  being  intermiiigled  with  the 
Church  through  exter^tal  fellowship  solely,  form- 
ing no  part  of  the  particular  Church  itself.  This 
is  evident  from  all  those  passages  of  Scripture  in 


OF  THE  SYNODICAL   CONFERENCE.  1 33 

which  \X\^  particular  Churches  are  described  as  the 
"  Churches  of  God,"  consisting  of  those  "  that  are 
sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus  ^^  (i  Cor.  i.  2;  Rom.  i.  7). 
Hence  it  is,  that  a  description  of  an  Evangelical 
Lutheran  local  Church  ('*  Ortsgemeinde  ")  is  given 
in  the  following  words  by  Dr.  Walther:  ''An 
Evangelical  Lutheran  local  Church  is  an  as- 
sembly of  believing  Christians  in  a  certain  place 
with  whom  the  Word  of  God  is  preached  in  its 
purity,  and  the  holy  Sacraments  are  adminis- 
tered according  to  the  Gospel. ' '  The  relation  be- 
tween the  particular  Churches  and  the  one  uni- 
versal Church  may,  therefore,  be  stated  thus:  the 
aggregate  of  the  particular  Churches  (with  the  ad- 
dition of  those  single  believers  who  are  cut  off  from 
all  external  Church-fellowship)  is  the  one  uni- 
versal Church,  embracing  all  true  believers  in  all 
parts  of  the  world. 

ORTHODOX  AND  HETERODOX  CHURCHES. 

The  particular  Churches  are  of  two  kinds^  de- 
termined by  their  relation  to  the  Word  of  God.  It 
is  Christ's  order  and  precept  that  the  pure 
doctrine,  and  nothing  but  the  pure  doctrine, 
should  be  preached  and  heard  in  His  Church. 
Throughout  the  whole  Scriptures  there  is  not 
found  a  single  passage  which  authorizes  or  permits 
a  minister  to  teach  false  doctrine,  or  a  Christian  to 
unite  with  those  who  teach  false  doctrine.  Hence 
arises  the  difference  between  orthodox  and  hetero- 


134       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

dox  Churches!  A  Church  which  conforms  to  the 
command  of  Christ,  that  is,  a  Church  in  which  the 
Gospel  is  taught  in  its  purity  and  the  Sacraments 
are  administered  according  to  the  Gospel,  is  by 
right  called  an  orthodox  Church;  on  the  other 
hand,  a  Church  which  does  not  conform  to  the 
will  of  Christ,  but  allows  false  doctrine  to  be  taught 
in  its  midst,  is  justly  called  a  heterodox  Church. 
As  ours  is  an  age  of  indifference  to  doctrine, 
Christians  must  take  special  heed  that  the  differ- 
ence between  orthodox  and  heterodox  Churches  be 
not  obliterated.  And  it  should  be  distinctly  under- 
stood that  the  character  of  the  Churches  as  to  their 
orthodoxy,  is  determined  by  the  doctrine  which  is 
actually  taught^  not  by  the  "officially  acknowl- 
edged confession"  kept  perhaps  in  the  archives 
only;  for  Christ  commanded  all  the  articles  of  the 
Christian  faith  to  be  taught,  and  not  kept  on 
record  only. 

The  heterodox  Churches  are  called  both 
*  ^  Churches ' '  and  '  *  sects ' '  in  diverse  respects.  They 
are  called  Churches  in  so  far  as,  besides  erroneous 
doctrines,  essential  parts  of  the  saving  truth  are  re- 
tained, and,  consequently,  true  children  of  God  may 
be  born  and  are  found  among  them ;  they  are  called 
sects  in  so  far  as  they  profess  doctrines  contrary  to 
the  Scriptures,  and,  by  adhering  to  false  doctrine, 
have  caused  division  in  the  Church,  and  con- 
stantly imperil  the  faith  and  salvation  of  the  chil- 
dren of  God. 


OF  THE  SYNODICAL  CONFERENCE.  135 

What  position  Christia7ts  ought  to  maintain  tO' 
ward  the  existiftg  heterodox  Churches. 

As  no  person  is  licensed  to  speak  aught  but  the 
Word  of  God  in  the  Church  (i  Pet.  iv.  11),  and  no 
Christian  is  allowed  to  unite  with  a  teacher  who  in 
any  way  deviates  from  the  doctrine  revealed  in 
Holy  Scripture,  Christians  who  are  not  yet  connected 
with  heterodox  Churches,  should  avoid  them,  and 
Christians  already  united  with  them,  should  come 
otit  from  among  them.  It  is  not  according  to  the 
good  pleasure  of  God — as  modern  theologians  teach 
— that  sects  exist,  for  all  Christians  are  required  to 
agree  on  all  articles  of  faith  revealed  in  Holy 
Scripture  (i  Cor.  i.  10;  Eph.  iv.  3-6),  but  sects 
arose  and  exist  by  God's  forbearance  only,  like 
other  sins.  Sects  arise  and  continue,  not  for  the 
purpose  that  Christians  should  join  them,  but  for 
the  purpose  that  Christians  should  prove  their  al- 
legiance to  God  by  avoiding  them,  as  the  Scriptures 
explicitly  teach,  i  Cor.  xi.  19:  "There  must  be 
also  heresies  among  you,  that  they  which  are  ap- 
proved may  be  made  manifest  among  you.'' 

To  unite  with  heterodox  Churches,  must  not  be 
excused  by  pointing  to  the  fact  that  many  dear 
children  of  God  are  found  among  them.  As  it  was 
not  lawful  for  the  Israelites  to  join  with  Absalom, 
although  two  hundred  men  out  of  Jerusalem  went 
with  the  rebel  "in  their  simplicity"  (2  Sam.  xv. 
11),  even  so  it  is  not  lawful  for  Christians  to  unite 
with  those  ecclesiastical   communities  that    rebel 


136        DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

against  Christ  by  proclaiming  false  doctrines,  al- 
though many  Christians  "in  their  simplicity"  and 
by  mistake  have  joined  them. 

Here  the  question  may  be  answered  what  position 
a  Christian  should  hold  in  regard  to  the  so-called 
Four  Points. 

Chihasm.  By  chiliasm  we  understand  the  doc- 
trine according  to  which  a  glorified  state  of  the 
Church  on  earth  in  a  millennial  reign  is  to  be  ex- 
pected. It  is  3.  false  doctrine,  as  it  contradicts  sev- 
eral clearly  revealed  truths,  especially  the  truth  that 
the  Church  on  earth  is  to  be  a  kingdom  subject  to 
the  cross  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  (Acts 
xiv.  22;  Luke  xviii.  8.)  It  is,  besides,  a  very  daft- 
^^r6>// J  doctrine,  as  it  perverts  the  hope  of  the  Chris- 
tains»  inviting  them  to  hope  for  a  glorification  in 
this  world,  instead  of  in  the  world  to  come.  Con- 
sequently, chiliasm  must  not  be  treated  as  an 
*'open  question,"  but  every  Christian,  every  con- 
gregation, and  every  ecclesiastical  body,  are  bound 
to  reject  the  chiliastic  opinion. 

Pulpit-fellowship.  All  Christians  are  commanded 
to  avoid  those  who  teach  doctrines  contrary  to  the 
Scriptures  (Rom.  xvi.  17);  teachers,  therefore,  who 
in  any  way  proclaim  false  doctrines,  are  not  to  be 
admitted  into,  but  to  be  excluded  from  our  pulpits. 
As  this  rule  is  taken  from  the  Word  of  God,  it  ad- 
mits of  no  exception,  but  applies  to  every  case  and 
occasion.  The  practice  of  pulpit-fellowship  with 
errorists  cannot  be  excused  on  the  plea  of  its  being 


OF  THE   SYNODICAL  CONFERENCE  1 37 

demanded  by  love.  For  it  is  contrary  to  both  the 
love  toward  God  who  bids  us  '' avoid ''^  false 
teachers  and  not  to  i7ivite  them  into  our  pulpits, 
and  the  love  toward  our  fellow-men,  as  it  is  our 
Christian  duty  to  warn  them  against  error,  and  not 
to  confirm  them  in  it.  Moreover,  it  is  patent  that 
by  the  practice  of  ''exchanging  pulpits"  the  dis- 
sensions in  the  Church,  caused  by  false  teachers, 
are  not  removed,  but  continued  and  ratified. 

Altar-fellowship.  In  regard  to  altar-fellowship 
the  same  reasons  hold  good  which  forbid  Church- 
fellowship  with  errorists.  Altar-fellowship  cer- 
tainly is  Church-fellowship.  There  is,  however, 
an  additional  reason  to  be  noted  on  this  point. 
According  to  the  explicit  statement  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture all  such  as  are  not  able  to  "discern  the  Lord's 
body,"  partake  unworthily  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Consequently,  love  bars  us  from  admitting  to  our 
altars  Christians  who  do  not  believe  the  real  and 
substantial  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  in  the  Holy  Supper,  and,  therefore,  are  not 
able  to  discern  the  body  of  the  Lord.  This  rule 
too,  being  taken  from  the  Word  of  God,  admits  of 
no  exceptions.  To  say  that  making  exceptions 
should  be  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  individual 
pastor  or  congregation,  is,  in  fact,  granting  a 
license  to  act  against  the  Word  of  God.  Sus- 
pension of  altar-fellowship  is  not  to  be  called  ex- 
communication. The  Lutheran  Church  denied 
altar-and  pulpit-fellowship  to  the  Reformed,  with- 


138       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES  AND   USAGES 

out  denying  that  there  are  Christians  among  the 
Reformed. 

Secret  societies.  Secret  societies,  such  as  Odd 
Fellows,  Free  Masons,  etc.,  are  incompatible  with 
the  Christian  Church.  For  in  these  societies  a  way 
\s>  Q.o\\\\\\^n^^6.  of  obtai7iing  ^^ eternal happi7iess^''''  not 
through  Christ,  however,  and  Him  crucified,  but  by 
"moral  education."  There  is  praying  also  in  the 
Lodges,  but  not  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.  From 
this  it  appears — not  to  mention  the  ungodly  oaths 
and  other  objectionable  features  connected  with 
membership  in  the  Lodges — that  a  Christian  can 
not  enter  into  membership  with  secret  societies 
without  professing  a  false  way  to  heaven  and  par- 
ticipating in  a  false  worship,  and  thus  denying 
Christ,  man's  only  hope  for  salvation.  It  is  the 
sacred  duty  of  the  Christian  Church  to  raise  her 
voice  against  secret  societies,  for  a  public  testimony; 
and  especially  for  the  purpose  of  regaining  such  of 
her  members  as  are  already  led  astray  by  the 
Lodges. 

OF   THE   MINISTERIAL  OFFICE. 

The  ministerial  office,  that  is,  the  office  of  the 
preaching  of  the  Word  and  the  administration  of 
the  Sacraments,  is  not  of  human  ordinance,  but  of 
divine  institution. 

As  it  is  God  who  instituted  the  ministerial  office, 
so  it  is  He  who  calls  certain  persons  to  this  office, 
Acts  XX.  28;  Eph.  iv.  8,  11,  12;  Matt.  ix.  38. 
Thus  far  all  parties  agree. 


OF  THE  SYNODICAI.  CONFERENCE.  1 39 

But  through  whom,  i.  e.,  what  human  agency, 
does  God  effect  his  call?  Here,  disagreement  be- 
gins. The  right  answer  is:  The  right  and  power  of 
electing  and  calling  ministers  of  the  divine  Word  is 
primarily  mid  immediately  granted,  not  to  the  pope, 
nor  to  bishops,  nor  to  the  ministry,  nor  to  a  Con- 
sistory, nor  to  the  Presbytery,  nor  to  a  civil  power 
of  any  form,  but  to  those  to  whom  ^//spiritual  power 
C Church-power")  originally  and  immediately  be- 
longs, namely,  the  congregation  of  believers.  As  it 
is  the  congregation  of  believers  that  has  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  (Matt,  xvi,  19,  xviii.  18), 
that  is  primarily  commissioned  to  teach  all  nations 
and  to  administer  the  Sacraments,  (Matt,  xxviii. 
19,  20),  that  is  the  '*  royal  priesthood"  for  showing 
forth  the  praises  of  him  who  hath  called  them  out 
of  darkness  into  his  marvelous  light,  so  it  is,  in  the 
very  nature  of  the  case,  the  congregation  of  be- 
lievers that  is  entrusted  with  the  power  of  appoint- 
ing ministers.  Hence,  the  Lutheran  Church  con- 
fesses in  the  Smalcald  Articles:  "Where  there  is  a 
true  Church,  there  must  be  the  right  to  elect  and 
ordain  ministers."  No  human  authority  can  re- 
move this  right  from  the  congregation  of  believers, 
as  it  was  granted  to  them  by  Christ  when  they  be- 
came children  of  God  through  faith  in  Christ,  and 
is,  consequently,  inhering  in  their  being  Christians. 
The  congregation  of  believers  may,  of  course, 
transfer  the  exercise  of  this  right  to  one  or  more 
persons.     Ministers  called  by  individual  persons  or 


140       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINRS   AND   USAGES 

a  body  of  persons  in  the  name  of  the  congregation 
of  believers  have  received  a  valid  and  divine  call. 
But  it  ever  remains  true  and  must  never  be  forgot- 
ten, that  the  only  body  to  whom  the  right  and 
power  of  calling  ministers  is  orighially  entrusted, 
IS  the  congregation  of  believers.  Whoever  is  called 
to  the  ministerial  office  by  this  body  either  directly 
or  indirectly,  has  received  a  divine  call;  whoever 
derives  from  other  sources  the  authority  to  teach 
publicly,  is  to  be  classed  with  those  of  whom  the 
Lord  says:  "I  have  not  sent  these  prophets,  yet 
they  ran  "  (Jer.  xxiii.  21).  All  this  may  be  summed 
up  thus:  the  ministerial  office  is  conferred  by 
God  upon  certain  persons  through  the  divinely  pre- 
scribed call  of  the  congregation,  the  congregation 
being,  by  the  gift  of  Christ,  the  original  possessor 
of  all  Church-power.  The  ministers  have  their 
office  from  Christ,  not  immediately,  however,  but 
mediately,  by  the  Church,  in  virtue  of  delegation 
through  the  call.  According  to  Holy  Scripture 
the  members  of  the  Christian  Church  among  them- 
selves constitute  a  spiritual  republic  (Matt,  xxiii. 
8).  As  the  office  of  a  Governor  or  President  in  a 
republic  is  not  a  personal  prerogative  of  an  individ- 
ual person  or  order  of  persons,  but  the  common 
property  of  the  whole  free  and  sovereign  nation, 
which  delegates  its  right  to  the  office  through  elec- 
tion to  a  certain  person:  even  so  the  ministerial 
office  and  all  spiritual  rights  are  the  common  prop- 
erty of  the  free  and  sovereign  people  of  believers 


OF  THE   SYNODIC AL   CONFERENCE.  141 

(]\tatt.  xxiii.  8;  i  Pet.  ii.  9,)  who  delegate  the 
divinely  instituted  office  of  the  ministry  through 
the  divinely  prescribed  call  to  certain  suitable  per- 
sons. The  ministers  are  not  only  servants  of 
Christ  (i  Cor.  iv.  i),  but  also  servants  of  the 
Church  (2  Cor.  iv.  5),  performing  the  functions  of 
the  office  in  the  place  and  name  of  the  Church,  and 
being  accountable  for  the  faithful  discharge  of  their 
duties  not  only  to  Christ,  but  also  to  the  congrega- 
tion (i  Colossians  iv.  17.) 

The  proper  answer  to  the  question  whether  it  is 
the  universal  or  the  local  Church  that  is  entrusted 
with  the  right  of  calling  ministers,  is  that  Christ 
clearly  ascribes  '*the  keys  of  the  kingdom,"  and, 
consequently,  the  right  to  appoint  ministers,  to  the 
local  Church.  For  it  is  the  local  Church  which 
Christ  addresses  when  He  says:  ''Whatsoever  ye 
shall  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven;  and 
whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed 
in  heaven. "  "  For  where  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of 
them,"  Matt,  xviii.  18,  20. 

Ordination.  It  is  the  call  of  the  congregation 
that  constitutes  ministers,  and  actually  confers  the 
ministerial  office.  Ordi7iatio7i  is  not  a  divine  ordin- 
ance, but  an  apostolic-ecclesiastical  institution.  It 
does  not  confer  the  ministry,  as  Papists  and  Roman- 
izing Protestants  assert,  but  is  only  a  public  testi- 
mony and  confirmation  of  the  call.  Ordination, 
therefore,  is  not  essential  to  the  validity  of  the 
ministerial  office. 


142        DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

The  right  of  judging  on  questio7is  of  doctrine  does 
not  rest  with  the  Church  at  large  only,  nor  with 
Synods  only  representing  the  Church  of  a  certain 
country,  nor  with  the  clergy  alone,  but  ivith  all  in- 
dividual Christians^  since  upon  all  Christians  is 
laid  the  duty  of  distinguishing  pure  teachers  from 
deceivers,  and  of  departing  from  error,  Matt.  vii. 
15;  Rom.  xvi.  17.  To  take  away  from  Christians 
the  right  of  judging  on  questions  of  doctrine,  is  an 
abominable  outrage,  and  the  origin  of  popery. 

Obedience  is  due  to  the  ministerial  office^  when- 
ever it  sets  forth  the  Word  of  God.  Beyond  these 
limits  obedience  must  neither  be  demanded  nor 
rendered.  A  minister  who  demands  obedience 
of  Christians  in  things  not  commanded  or  forbid- 
den by  the  Word  of  God,  puts  himself  in  the  place 
of  Christ,  for  it  is  Christ's  privilege  to  be  the 
Master  of  those  who  believe  in  Him  (Matt,  xxiii. 
8).  A  Christian  who  allows  men  to  bind  his  con- 
science beyond  the  Word  of  God,  by  this  very  fact 
and  in  this  regard  falls  away  from  Christ  as  his 
only  Master,  and  becomes  an  idolator,  paying  di- 
vine honors  to  mortal  man.  It  is  a  misuse  of  the 
Fourth  Commandment  when  ministers  in  demand- 
ing obedience  in  things  not  commanded  by  God 
refer  to  that  Commandment.  What  is  true  concern- 
ing ministers,  holds  good  also  in  regard  to  the  so- 
called  representative  Church,  namely,  in  regard  to 
Synods,  Church  Councils,  etc.  If  the  decisions  and 
injunctions  of  the  "Church"  are  identical  with  the 


OF  THE  SYNODICAL  CONFERENCE.  1 43 

Word  of  God,  they  are  to  be  obeyed,  not  because 
they  are  the  decisions  of  the  Churchy  but  on  account 
of  their  being  the  very  Word  of  God.  If  they  go 
beyond  these  limits,  either  by  declaring  to  be  true 
what  the  Scriptures  pronounce  to  be  false,  or  by 
making  obligatory  upon  the  consciences  of  Chris- 
tians what  is  a  matter  of  indifference,  all  Christians 
are  bound  to  disregard  them.  There  is  absolutely 
no  authority  in  the  Church  beyond  the  Word  of 
God,  and  there  is,  consequently,  no  authority  on 
earth  that  could  make  the  least  thing,  not  pre- 
scribed by  Christ,  obligatory  upon  a  Christian's 
conscience.  The  pope,  says  Luther,  has  the  power 
of  laying  a  fast  upon  himself^  but  not  on  some 
second  person  in  the  whole  world.  This  holds 
true  concerning  all  matters  of  indifference  and  with 
all  persons. 

But  as  there  are,  within  the  individual  congre- 
gations, many  things  to  be  determined  upon  which 
Christ  did  not  prescribe,  how  then  are  these 
things  to  be  arranged?  Not  by  the  clergy  alone 
commanding  the  Christian  people  what  to  do,  nor 
by  the  majority  prescribing  conscience-binding 
laws  to  the  minority,  nor  by  some  authority  out- 
side of  the  congregation  deciding  for  the  congrega- 
tion what  was  left  undecided  by  Christ,  but  by  the 
deliberations  and  the  mutual  agreement  of  the 
whole  congregation,  the  minority  submitting  to 
the  majority,  or  the  majority  to  the  minority,  ''for 
the  sake  of  charity  and   tranquillity,"  as  the  case 


144       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

and  occasion  may  require.  Matters  of  indifference 
are  easily  arranged  if  the  Christians  do  not  walk 
after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit.  When  they 
walk  after  the  flesh,  they  will  try  to  lord  over  their 
brethren  ;  when  they  walk  after  the  Spirit,  they 
are  always  ready  to  submit  to  them  for  charity's 
sake. 

Synods  must  not  claim  divine  authority  over  the 
congregations  connected  wdth  them,  but  carefully 
keep  within  the  sphere  of  advisory  bodies.  The 
local  congregation  is  the  highest  divinely  insti- 
tuted tribunal  in  the  Church,  as  is  seen  from  Matt, 
xviii.  17.  All  jurisdiction  exercised  over  congre- 
gations by  persons  outside  of  the  congregations  is 
of  human  ordinance  only. 

OF   CHURCH-UNION. 

All  Christians  are  already  one  in  Christ.  Christ's 
promise  that  "there  shall  be  one  fold  and  one 
shepherd"  (John  x.  16),  has  been  in  the  course  of 
fulfillment  ever  since  the  times  of  the  apostles, 
whenever  a  soul  by  true  conversion  was  added  to 
the  communion  of  believers.  All  Christians  ac- 
tually agree  on  the  main  article  of  Christian 
religion,  namely,  on  the  article  that  they  have  for- 
giveness of  their  sins  through  faith  in  Christ 
alone,  and  not  by  their  own  works,  although  many 
of  them  are  in  external  connection  with  heterodox 
churches,  and,  by  infirmity,  err  in  some  parts  of 
doctrine.     For  it  is  this  faith  that  makes  a  man  a 


OF   THE   SYNODIC  A  L   CONFERENCE.  145 

Christian  and  unites  him  with  the  spiritual   body 
of  Christ. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  a  deplorable  state  of  things, 
that  there  are  external  Christian  communities  dif- 
fering in  doctrine.  Sects,  as  stated  before,  do  not 
exist  according  to  God's  will  and  good  pleasure, 
but  only  by  God's  forbearance.  All  Christians, 
therefore,  should  be  desirous  of  a  reunion,  and 
earnestly  labor  for  the  same. 

But  the  union  sought  for  must  not  be  a  so-called 
organic  union  only,  but  a  union  in  faith  and  doc- 
trine. Christians  may  differ  and,  in  many  cases, 
owing  to  different  circumstances,  must  differ  as  to 
ceremonies,  external  organization,  etc.  But  there 
is  one  thing  concerning  which  all  Christians  of  all 
times  and  of  all  countries  should  perfectly  agree — 
they  should  be  one  in  faith  and  doctrine.  "I  be- 
seech you,  brethren,"  St.  Paul  says,  "by  the 
name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  all  speak 
the  same  thing,  and  that  there  be  no  divisions 
among  you,  but  that  ye  be  perfectly  joined  to- 
gether in  the  same  mind  and  in  the  same  judg- 
ment" (i  Cor.  i.  10). 

How  is  this  union  to  be  effected?  Sects  arose 
when  certain  persons  taught  contrary  to  the  Scrip>- 
tures,  and  others,  instead  of  rebuking  their  errors, 
united  with  them.  The  only  way,  therefore,  to 
cause  the  divisions  to  disappear,  is  to  remind  the 
Christians  of  their  duty  to  part  with  error,  and, 
consequently,  with  all  persons  that  persist  in  pro- 
10 


146       DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

claiming  doctrines  contrary  to  Holy  Scripture,  and 
to  unite  with  those  that  teach  the  pure  word  of 
God.  Christians  should  never  agree  to  disagree 
on  any  article  of  faith,  but  earnestly  endeavor  to 
bring  about  an  agreement  on  all  doctrines  revealed 
in  Holy  Scripture.  Nothing  but  the  revealed 
truth,  and  the  whole  revealed  truth — that  is  the 
platform  which  God  has  made  for  the  Christian, 
and  which  every  Christian  is  commanded  to  stand 
upon.  An  agreement  on  a  more  or  less  compre- 
hensive collection  of  so-called  '* fundamental  ar- 
ticles," selected  by  man,  leaving  a  portion  of  the 
divinely  revealed  truth  to  the  discretion  of  the  dis- 
senting parties,  is  a  position  wholly  unbecoming 
to  Christians,  for,  not  to  deny,  but  to  confess  the 
Word  of  Christ,  is  their  duty  in  this  world. 

But  is  perfect  agreement  concerning  doctrine 
possible?  We  most  emphatically  answer:  it  is, 
as  the  Scriptures  are  perfectly  clear  on  all  articles 
of  faith,  every  article  of  faith  being  revealed  at 
least  somewhere  in  the  Scriptures  in  plain  and 
proper  words.  God,  by  graciously  giving  his  Word 
to  men,  did  not  propose  to  them  a  collection  of  rid- 
dles, but  made  his  word  to  be  "a  lamp  unto  our 
feet,  and  a  light  unto  our  path"  (Ps.  cxix.  105), 
**a  light  that  shineth  in  a  dark  place"  (2  Peter  i. 
19),  ''making  wise  the  simple"  (Ps.  xix.  7). 
Erring  concerning  any  article  of  faith  is  impossible 
as  long  as  the  words  of  Scripture  are  retained  as 
they  read.     Ere   falling  into  error  is  possible,  the 


OF  THE  SYNODICAL  CONFERENCE.  147 

plain  words  of  Scripture  must  have  either  been  en- 
tirely set  aside  or  twisted  from  their  natural  mean- 
ing according  to  human  reason  or  feelings. 

ON  "open  questions." 

There  are,  indeed,  "open  questions  "  if  this  term 
is  used  in  the  sense  of  "theological  problems." 
Such  are  all  those  questions  which  are  not  decided 
in  Holy  Scripture.  Open  questions  in  this  sense 
are  never  to  be  "closed,"  since  no  human  author- 
ity, be  it  called  "Church"  or  otherwise,  can 
supply  the  lacking  decision  of  Holy  Scripture. 
This  would  be  "adding  unto  the  Word  of  God" 
and  denying  that  the  written  Word  of  God  is  the 
only  rule  and  standard  of  faith  and  life.  Theolo- 
gians should  not  waste  their  time  and  energy  in 
trying  to  solve  questions  not  answered  by  the 
Bible.  On  the  other  hand,  all  doctrines  revealed 
in  Holy  Scripture  are  to  be  accepted  and  believed, 
for  the  very  reason  that  they  are  propounded  in 
Holy  Scripture,  no  matter  whether  "decided"  in 
the  Symbolical  Books  and  agreed  upon  by  the  the- 
ologians or  not.  To  declare  doctrines  revealed  in 
the  Bible  to  be  "open"  or  "free"  for  the  reason 
that  they  are  not  yet  "symbolically  fixed"  in  the 
Confessions  of  the  orthodox  Church,  or  not  yet 
accepted  by  all  orthodox  theologians,  would,  in 
fact,  be  the  same  as  to  put  the  Church,  her  Confes- 
sions and  tlieologians,  in  the  place  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture,   and    to    ascribe    to    the    Church    and    her 


14S       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

theologians  the  authority  of  establishing  articles 
of  faith.  We,  of  course,  insist  upon  accepting  the 
Confessions  of  the  Lutheran  Church  without  ex- 
ception and  reserve,  as  we  are  convinced  that  all 
doctrines  propounded  by  them  (either  "ex  pro- 
fesso "  or  incidentally)  are  in  strict  accordance 
with  Holy  Scripture,  and  we,  moreover,  maintain 
that  a  qualified  acceptance  of  the  Confessions  of 
the  Lutheran  Church  makes  a  qualified  Lutheran. 
But  we,  nevertheless,  denounce  any  position  as  un- 
Lutheran  according  to  which  the  Confessions  are 
to  take  the  place  of  the  Scriptures. 

ON   SUNDAY. 

Sunday  in  the  New  Testament  is  not  instituted 
by  God^  as  was  the  Sabbath  in  the  Old  Testament; 
yea,  Sabbath,  or  any  other  day,  as  a  divine  insti- 
tution, is  clearly  abolished  in  the  New  Testament, 
as  St.  Paul  declares:  "Let  no  man  therefore  judge 
you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  holy- 
day,  or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath  days" 
(Colossians  ii.  16).  Hence  we  are  not  bound  by 
any  law  of  God  to  observe  either  Sunday  or  any 
other  day.  Sunday  belongs  to  the  Chu7'ch  ordi- 
nances, and  is  to  be  classed  with  Christmas, 
Easter,  Pentecost,  and  other  Christian  holy  days. 
The  Christian  Church  has,  in  the  free  use  of  her 
liberty,  chosen  Sunday  for  a  day  of  divine  worship, 
because  some  time  or  other  must  be  selected  for 
hearing  the  public  preaching  of  the  Word  of  God. 


OF  THE  SYNODICAL  CONFERENCE.  1 49 

We  do  not  oppose  Sunday  laws  enacted  on  merely 
social  reasons;  for  public  welfare  demands  a  day  of 
rest  from  daily  labor  "that  both  man  and  beast 
might  be  refreshed,  and  not  exhausted  by  constant 
labor."  But  every  Christian  is  in  conscience 
bound  to  oppose  all  Sunday  laws  based  on  the  as- 
sumption that  Sunday  is  of  divine  ordinance,  for 
by  lending  support  to  this  assumption,  we  would 
participate  oi  false  doctrine  and  entangle  Christians 
again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage  wherefrom  Christ 
hath  made  them  free.  In  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion the  ''Sunday  question"  is  summed  up  thus: 
"Those  who  are  of  opinion,  that  the  ordinance  of 
Sunday  instead  of  the  Sabbath  was  established  as  a 
thing  necessary,  err  very  much.  For  the  Holy 
Scripture  has  abolished  the  Sabbath,  and  teaches, 
that  all  ceremonies  of  the  old  law,  since  the  revela- 
tion of  the  Gospel,  may  be  discontinued.  And  yet 
as  it  was  necessary  to  appoint  a  certain  day,  so  that 
the  people  might  know  when  they  should  assem- 
ble, the  Christian  Church  ordained  Sunday  for  that 
purpose,  and  possessed  rather  more  inclination  and 
willingness  for  this  alteration,  in  order  that  the 
people  might  have  an  example  of  Christian  liberty^ 
that  they  might  know  that  neither  the  observance 
of  the  Sabbath,  nor  of  any  other  day,  is  necessary." 
The  "Sunday  question"  is  not  an  "open"  one, 
but  clearly  decided  by  the  Word  of  God. 


150       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 
ANTICHRIST. 

Holy  Scripture  speaks  of  ''^ ma?iy  antichrists*' 
(i  John  ii.  18).  As  Christ  alone  is  to  rule  in  his 
Church  by  his  Word,  all  false  teachers  setting  forth 
in  the  Church  their  own  doctrine  instead  of 
Christ's  set  themselves  against  Christ,  attempt  to 
cast  off  the  authority  of  Christ  and  to  overthrow  his 
kingdom.  Hence  all  false  teachers  are  justly 
called  antichrists.  But  the  Scriptures  speak  also 
of  one  Antichrist  in  whom  the  principles  and  spirit 
of  the  many  antichrists  are  to  culminate.  This 
Antichrist,  commonly  called  the  great  Antichrist 
and  graphically  described  in  the  second  chapter  of 
the  second  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  we  believe 
to  be  the  pope  at  Rome,  the  papacy. 

To  this  doctrine,  so  clearly  stated  in  the  Confes- 
sions of  the  Lutheran  Church  and  once  generally 
accepted  by  all  Lutherans,  exception  is  taken  now. 
Modern  Lutheran  theologians,  although  acknowl- 
edging antichristian  traits  in  the  papacy,  are  wait- 
ing for  a  still  greater  foe  of  the  Christian  Church. 
But  it  is  from  ignorance  or  from  a  lack  of  due  con- 
sideration as  to  what  the  Christian  Church  really 
is,  when  the  pope  at  Rome  is  not  recognized  as  the 
greatest  possible  human  foe  of  the  Christian 
Church,  and  when  worldly  potentates  like  Napo- 
leon, or  even  Boulanger,  are  thought  of  as  the  An- 
tichrist. The  Christian  Church  is  the  communion 
of  believers,  that  is,  of  those  who  believe  that  they 
are  justified   and   saved    by  confiding   in  Christ's 


OF  THE  SYNODICAL   CONFERENCE.  I51 

merit  alone  and  not  in  any  merits  of  their  own. 
It  is  this  faith  that  constitutes  the  very  essence  of 
the  spiritual  life  of  a  Christian.  What  the  water  is 
for  the  fish  and  the  air  for  bodily  life,  that  is  re- 
liance on  God's  grace  in  Christ  alone  for  the  spirit- 
ual life  of  the  Christian.  As  soon  as  this  faith  is 
enkindled  in  their  hearts  they  become  Christians, 
as  long  as  this  faith  continues  in  them  they  remain 
Christians,  and  tlie  very  moment  this  faith  is  ex- 
tinguished in  them,  they  cease  to  be  Christians. 
Who,  therefore,  is  the  greatest  enemy  of  the  Chris- 
tians or  the  Christian  Church  ?  He  who  uses  every 
means  to  destroy  in  the  hearts  of  Christians  the 
faith  that  relies  on  Christ's  merit  alone.  But  this 
is  what  Rome  is  engaged  in.  Rome  not  only  re- 
jects the  doctrine  of  justification  through  faith  in 
Christ  alone,  but  she,  in  the  Resolutions  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  curses  this  truth  by  which  Chris- 
tians live.  And  she  not  merely  curses  it,  but  the 
whole  system  and  machinery  of  Romanism  has  the 
tendency  to  hinder  and  destroy  faith  in  Christ  and 
to  engender  trust  in  man's  own  works.  It  was,  in- 
deed, a  fearful  thing  when  men  like  Nero  slaugh- 
tered thousands  of  Christians.  But  it  was  a  small 
affair  when  compared  with  wdiat  Rome  does.  For 
Rome  incessantly  takes  the  spiritual  life  of  millions 
of  Christians  by  taking  from  them  faith  in  Christ  as 
the  only  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  not  to 
mention  here  that  Rome  also  drank  the  blood  of 
the  martyrs  of  Jesus  whenever  she  had  the  power 
to  do  so. 


152       DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND   USAGES 

Again,  Christians  are  to  be  ruled  by  Christ^s 
word  alone  (John  viii.  31),  Christ  claiming  the 
prerogative  to  be  their  only  Master  (Matt,  xxiii. 
8).  But  the  Pope  at  Rome,  under  the  pretense  of 
being  Christ's  vicar  on  earth,  alters  and  annuls 
Christ's  Word  and  Commandments  at  his  pleasure, 
bearing  himself  as  if  he  were  a  God  on  earth. 

And  this  dreadful  and  blasphemous  work  Rome 
does  under  the  disguise  of  exquisite  holiness.  The 
infidels,  of  course,  blaspheme  Christ  too,  but  they 
do  it  openly,  and  all  Christians  know  that  they 
have  to  beware  of  them.  Rome,  however,  rejects 
and  blasphemes  Christ  under  the  outward  appear- 
ance of  Christianity,  and  under  the  claim  of  being 
the  Church  without  which  there  is  no  salvation, 
sustaining  this  false  claim  by  all  manner  of  de- 
ceits, by  signs,  and  by  lying  wonders.  Thus  the 
papacy  is  the  greatest  possible  foe  of  Christ  and 
His  Church,  and  all  the  traits  which  in  2  Thess.  ii. 
are  ascribed  to  the  Antichrist,  that  he  is  to  arise 
in  the  Church,  exalting  himself  above  all  human 
authority,  assuming  to  himself  the  prerogative  of 
God,  and  sustaining  these  assumptions  "with  all 
power  and  signs  and  lying  wonders" — all  these 
traits  we  find  in  the  pope  at  Rome.  Hence,  we 
fully  and  heartily  indorse  the  doctrine  of  the 
I^utheran  Confessions,  that  the  pope  is  the  great 
Antichrist  of  whom  Scripture  has  prophesied.  In 
the  papacy  we  see  the  great  Antichrist  standing 
barely  and  squarely  in  the  sight  of  the  Christians 


OF   THR   SYNODICAL   CONFERENCE.  1 53 

and  doing  his  fearful  work,  and,  therefore,  we  are 
not  looking  forward  to  any  other  great  Antichrist 
to  come  in  future  times. 

We  do  not,  of  course,  hold,  as  we  are  frequently 
represented,  that  this  doctrine  of  the  Antichrist  is 
a  fundamental  article  of  the  Christian  religion. 
For  man  is  saved  by  knowing  Christ,  not  by 
knowing  and  recognizing  Antichrist.  But  what 
we  hold  is  this:  every  Christian,  knowing  Christ 
well,  will  recognize  the  papacy  to  be  the  very 
Antichrist,  as  soon  as  he  becomes  thoroughly  ac- 
quainted with  the  teachings  and  doings  of  Rome. 
Especially  we  hold  those  theologians  to  be  rather 
poor  theologians  who,  knowing  the  doctrine  and 
practice  of  the  papacy,  fail  to  recognize  it  to  be  the 
true  Antichrist. 

ON   ABSOLUTION. 

Absolution  is  nothing  else  than  the  Gospel  di- 
rected to  one  or  more  individual  persons  who  desire 
it.  By  the  word  of  absolution  the  forgiveness  of 
sin  is  really  offered  to  all  who  hear  it,  and  actually 
conferred  on  all  who  receive  it  in  faith. 

It  is  for  a  two-fold  reason  that  to  many  Chris- 
tians  the  practice  of  absolution  is  a  matter  of  great 
offense.  In  the  first  place,  they  confound  the 
divinely  instituted  absolution  (John  xx.  23;  Matt, 
xviii.  18;  xvi.  19)  with  the  Romish  caricature  of 
such  institution.  According  to  the  Romanists,  ab- 
solution   is  an  act  which  only  the  Roman  priest 


154       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

can  perform,  and  by  which  the  priest  sits  in  judg- 
ment on  the  sinner,  pardoning  and  condemning  at 
his  discretion.  This  doctrine,  indeed,  is  as  blas- 
phemons  as  it  is  ridiculous,  but  it  has  nothing  in 
common  with  the  biblical  doctrine  held  by  the 
Lutheran  Church.  According  to  Holy  Scripture, 
absolution  is  not  a  power  vested  in  the  ministry  or 
any  certain  order  of  persons,  but  a  power  granted 
to  the  whole  Church,  i.  e.,  to  all  believers.  This 
is  clearly  seen  by  comparing  John  xx.  23,  Matt, 
xvi.  19,  with  Matt,  xviii.  18.  In  fact,  all  Christians 
when  they  console  one  another  with  the  Gospel, 
they  actually  absolve.  A  child  pronouncing  the 
words  of  the  Gospel  remits  sin  just  as  effectually 
as  a  bishop,  minister,  etc. 

But  the  main  reason  why  so  many  Christians 
take  offense  at  the  practice  of  absolution  is  to  be 
found  in  their  inadequate  ideas  as  to  what  the  Gos- 
pel of  Christ  properly  is.  Their  conceptions  of  the 
vicarious  work  of  Christy  and  consequently  of  the 
Gospel  also,  fail  to  come  up  to  the  biblical  stand- 
ard. They  think  that  Christ  has  only  brought 
about  so  much  for  us  that  we  now,  by  our  conver- 
sion, faith,  and  prayers,  render  God  fully  propi- 
tious, and  thus  obtain  forgiveness  of  sins.  Hence, 
they  conceive  the  Gospel  to  be  the  declaration  of 
certain  conditions  on  which  God  would  forgive  sin. 
With  many  Christians  and  teachers  the  Gospel  is  a 
vci^x^  plan  to  save  sinners,  Christ  having  caused  in 
the  heart  of  God  a  certain  tendency  to  forgive  sin, 


OF  THE  SYNODICAL  CONFERENCE.  1 55 

men  completing  the  change  in  the  heart  of  God  by 
their  being  sorry  for  their  sins,  by  their  praying  to 
God  for  forgiveness,  by  their  earnest  endeavors  to 
lead  a  better  life,  etc.  Bnt  these  conceptions  both 
of  the  work  of  Christ  and  the  Gospel  are  altogether 
wrong.  Christ  has  already  perfectly  and  com- 
pletely reconciled  the  whole  world  unto  God,  and 
the  Gospel,  being  the  message  of  what  Christ  has 
done  for  mankind,  is  "  the  Word  of  reconciliation," 
viz. :  the  word  stating  that  God  is  reconciled— Z^;-- 
fectly  and  completely  reconciled — through  Christ  to 
the  whole  world  and  every  individual  sinner.  The 
Gospel  is  not  the  Word  which  teaches  how  men 
might  by  their  own  exertions  render  God  fully 
propitious,  but  the  Word  which  assures  us  that 
God  was  reconciled  to  all  men  through  the  vicar- 
ious sacrifice  of  Christ.  Therefore,  to  preach  the 
Gospel  does  not  mean  to  lay  before  men  a  mere 
plan  of  salvation,  or  to  declare  the  co7iditions  of 
forgiveness,  but  preaching  the  Gospel  is  preaching 
pardon  itself,  salvation  itself,  "remission  of  sins" 
itself  (Luke  xxiv.  47).  The  Gospel  is  "nothing 
else  than  a  great  letter  of  pardon  directed  to  the 
whole  world."  Hence  it  is  that  Luther  frequently 
says:  "A  minister  preaching  the  Gospel  can  not 
open  his  mouth  without  constantly  remitting  sin." 
Wherever  the  Gospel  is  proclaimed,  there  absolu- 
tion is  pronounced.  It  is  from  this  co7iception  of 
the  Gospel  that  the  Liithera7i  practice  of  absolution 
is  to  be  judged  and  understood.     It  should  be  borne 


156       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

in  mind  also  that  God  has  already  absolved  the 
whole  world  in  laying  the  sins  of  the  whole  world 
on  Christ  and  in  raising  up  Christ  from  the  dead. 
With  our  sins  upon  him  Christ  entered  into  the 
prison-house  of  death;  absolved  from  our  sins  he 
was  set  free  in  his  resurrection.  Hence  it  is  seen 
that  the  resurrection  of  Christ  actually  involves  an 
absolution  of  the  whole  world,  and  the  absolution 
we  pronounce  is  nothing  but  a  repetition  or  echo 
of  what  God  has  long  since  pronounced. 

But  what  of  the  necessity  oi  faith?  Faith,  in- 
deed, is  necessary  on  the  part  of  man;  not,  how- 
ever, to  render  God  fully  propitious,  or  in  any  way 
to  merit  forgiveness  of  sin,  but  to  accept  of  the  for- 
giveness already  earned  by  Christ  and  now  offered 
in  the  Gospel.  "Absolution" — says  Dr.  Walther 
—  'demands  faith,  and  faith  alone  receives  what 
is  oflfered  and  given  by  it;  neither  absolution,  nor 
any  means  of  grace,  operates  ex  opere  operato. ' ' 

It  is  of  great  importance  to  maintain  this  true 
conception  of  the  Gospel,  viz.,  that  forgiveness  of 
sins  exists  for  every  sinner  before  his  conversion 
and  faith.  For,  how  could  man  obtain  forgiveness 
of  sin  by  faith  ^  i.  ^.,  by  laying  hold  on  it  by  faith, 
if  this  forgiveness  did  not  actually  exist  for  him  in 
Christ  and  were  not  offered  to  him  in  the  Gospel? 

To  this  doctrifte  is  objected:  "  The  forgiveness  of 
sin  is  the  prerogative  of  God."  This  is  true! 
Whoever  is  not  absolved  by  God^  remains  under 
the  burden  of  sin,  although  he  be  a  thousand  times 


OF  THE   SYNODICAL   CONFERENCE.  1 57 

absolved  by  men.  But  now  the  question  arises 
whether  God  absolves  immediately^  e.  g.^  by  visi- 
ble apparition,  or  mediately^  by  using  certain 
means.  We  most  emphatically  deny  the  former 
and  affirm  the  latter.  God  performs  his  absolution 
through  the  Word  of  7'econciliation.  And  this  Word 
of  reconciliation  he  has  not  kept  for  himself,  but 
committed  to  his  Church  on  earth.  St.  Paul  after 
having  stated  "that  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling 
the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing  their  tres- 
passes unto  them,"  immediately  adds:  "and  hath 
committed  unto  us  the  word  of  reconciliation." 
This,  therefore,  is  the  state  of  things:  Christ  hav- 
ing committed  to  His  Church  the  Gospel^  thereby 
committed  to  her  the  right  and  enjoined  upon  her 
the  duty  of  forgiving  sin.  No  one  who  concedes 
the  former  can  consistently  deny  the  latter. 
Hence,  Christ  in  describing  the  agency  by  which 
sin  is  forgiven  (John  xx.,  Matt,  xviii.,  Matt,  xvi.), 
names  the  congregation  of  believers:  "Whatso- 
ever ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in 
heaven,"  and  "Whosesoever  sins  jj/^  remit,  they  are 
remitted  unto  them."  What  is  true  of  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel,  is  true  also  of  the  administration 
of  the  Sacraments,  the  Sacraments  being  nothing 
but  the  "  visible  Gospel."  The  person  administer- 
ing the  Sacraments  is,  in  fact,  administering  ab- 
solution. The  person  saying  "I  baptize  you,"  at 
the  same  time  says  "  I  absolve  you."  Baptism  is 
a  private  absolution.     So  is  also  the  Lord's  Supper. 


158       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

Against  absolution^  moreover^  is  objected:  *'Itis 
impossible  to  believe  that  God  has  given  men  the 
power  of  forgiving  sin,  unless  he  has  given  them 
the  power  of  infallible  judgment."  This  ob- 
jection rests  on  the  false  supposition  that  absolu- 
tion is  a  decision  rendered  on  the  state  of  man's 
heart,  while  it  is  a  declaration  given  on  the  state 
of  God* s  heart,  namely,  that  God  is  reconciled  to 
every  sinner  through  Christ.  God  being  perfectly 
reconciled  to  every  sinner  through  Christ,  as  Holy 
Scripture  reveals,  no  infallibility  whatever  is  re- 
quired on  the  part  of  man  to  pronounce  absolution, 
but  only  a  mouth  to  give  utterance  of  a  fact  clearly 
revealed  in  Holy  Scripture.  Absolution  is  founded 
on  two  facts,  first,  that  God  is  perfectly  reconciled 
through  Christ  to  every  sinner;  secondly,  that  God 
has  commanded  this  Gospel  to  be  preached  in  the 
world,  and  especially  to  the  penitent  sinners  who 
long  for  the  consolation  of  the  Gospel.  Absolution 
demands  faith  on  the  part  of  man,  yet  it  is  not 
based  Vi^ovL  faith,  but  pronounced  for  the  purpose 
of  being  appropriated  by  faith. 

From  the  I^utheran  Confessions  the  following 
statement  concerning  absolution  may  be  cited  here: 
The  power  of  the  keys  announces  to  us  the  Gospel^ 
through  absolution;  for  absolution  proclaims  peace 
to  the  soul,  and  is  the  Gospel  itself .  .  .  When  we 
hear  absolution,  that  is,  t/ie  promise  of  divine 
grace^  or  the  Gospel^  our  hearts  and  consciences 
are  consoled.     Inasmuch  as  God  truly  grants  new 


OF  THE  SYNODICAL  CONFERENCE.  1 59 

life  and  comfort  to  our  hearts  throtigh  the  Word^ 
our  sins  are  truly  remitted  here  on  earth  through 
the  power  of  the  keys,  so  that  we  are  released  from 
them  before  God  in  heaven;  as  we  find,  Luke  x.  16: 
''  He  that  heareth  you,  heareth  me."  We  should, 
therefore,  esteem  and  believe  the  words  of  absolu- 
tion no  less  than  the  clear  voice  of  God  from 
heaven.     (Apology,  N.  M.  ed.  p.  236.) 

OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

By  justification  we  understand  the  remission  of 
sins.  Since  Christ  has  already  perfectly  acquired 
forgiveness  of  sins  for  all  men,  and  since  this  for- 
giveness is  offered  and  exhibited  to  men  through 
the  means  of  grace,  to  wit,  the  Gospel  and  the  Sac- 
raments: the  only  means  on  our  part  of  obtaining 
forgiveness  of  sins  and  salvation  is  \\i2X  faith  which 
accepts  of  the  promise  of  God.  All  works  and 
worthiness  of  our  own  are  entirely  excluded  as  a 
means  of  obtaining  remission  of  sins  or  justifica- 
tion. 

This  is  the  main  article  of  the  Christian  religion. 
It  is  by  this  article  that  the  Christian  religion  is 
distinguished  from  all  other  so-called  religions. 
There  are  only  two  essentially  different  religions  in 
the  world.  According  to  one,  justification  and 
salvation  is  obtained,  either  totally  or  partially,  by 
man's  own  works;  according  to  the  other,  justifica- 
tion and  salvation  is  obtained  without  works  by 
faith,  that  is,  by  merely  accepting  of  the  grace  of 


l6o       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

God  ill  Christ,  exhibited  in  the  Gospel.  The  latter 
is  the  Christian  religion,  the  former  the  heathen  re- 
ligion in  its  various  forms. 

From  this  it  appears  that  by  corrupting  the 
article  of  justification  the  essential  feature  of  the 
Christian  religion  is  destroyed.  This  is  done  e.  g. 
by  synergism.  The  assertion,  that  conversion  and 
salvation  depends  not  only  upon  the  grace  of  God 
but  to  some  extent  also  on  the  conduct  of  man, 
overthrows  the  article  of  justification,  destroys  the 
essential  character  of  the  Christian  religion,  and 
places  it  on  equal  footing  with  the  heathen  relig- 
ions. 

OF  CONVERSION. 

As  natural  man  is  dead  in  sin  (Bph.  ii.  i),  yea 
enmity  against  God  (Rom.  viii.  7),  his  coming  to 
God  or  his  conversion  is  solely  the  work  of  God 
who  through  the  means  of  his  Word  produces  a 
new  spiritual  life  and  creates  a  new  willing  heart. 
The  Scriptures  explicitly  declare  that  man^s  con- 
version is  accomplished  by  the  same  infinite  power 
by  which  God  created  natural  light  out  of  darkness 
(2  Cor.  iv.  6),  and  raised  Christ  from  the  dead 
(Eph.  i.  19,  20). 

Hence  there  is  no  co-operatio^i  whatever  on  the 
part  of  man  towards  his  conversion,  but  man  is 
only  the  object  that  is  to  be  converted.  There  are 
not  three^  but  only  two  causes  of  conversion:  The 
Holy  Spirit  and  the  Word  of  God;  by  adding  a 
third  cause,  to  wit,  the  will  of  man,  or  by  asserting 


OF   THE   SYNODICAL   CONFERENCE.  l6l 

that  conversion  depends  not  only  on  divine  grace, 
but  to  some  extent  also  on  man's  conduct,  syner- 
gistic error  is  taught. 

The  converting  or  regenerating  grace,  however, 
is  not  irresistible.  Man  can  offer  resistance  to 
God's  earnest,  regenerating  grace,  and  \\\\\'& prevent 
conversion,  as  Holy  Scripture  clearly  teaches 
(Acts  vii.  51;  Matt,  xxiii.  37).  But  man  can  not 
proynote  his  conversion.  He  is  not  able  to  refrain 
from  resisting  the  grace;  non-resistance  must  be 
effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  From  man's  ability 
to  "behave  evil''  towards  the  Gospel  (Matt,  xxiii. 
37)  his  ability  to  refrain  from  resistance,  or  to 
"behave  well  "  toward  converting  grace  must  not 
be  inferred  (i  Cor.  ii.  14).  Hence  it  is  rightly  said 
no7i-conversion  depends  upon  man's  evil  conduct^ 
but  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures  to 
say  that  co7tversion  also  depends  on  man's  good 
coftduct.  Hodge  (Systematic  Theology  ii.  649)  en- 
tirely misstates  the  Lutheran  doctrine  when  he 
says:  According  to  the  Lutherans,  "the  fact  that 
one  man  is  converted  under  the  call  of  the  Gospel 
and  not  another,  that  one  accepts  and  another  re- 
jects the  offered  mercy,  is  to  be  referred  solely  to 
the  fact  that  one  does,  and  the  other  does  not  resist 
that  influence."  Lutherans  who  are  in  accordance 
with  the  Lutheran  Confessions  will  say:  The  fact 
that  one  man  is  converted  under  the  call  of  the 
Gospel,  is  to  be  referred  solely  to  the  grace  of  God, 
non-resisting  not  being  antecedent  but  consequent 
II 


1 62       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

to  the  operation  of  grace.  The  fact,  however,  that 
another  man  is  not  converted,  is  to  be  referred 
solely  to  man's  voluntary  resistance  (Formula  of 
Concord,  S.  D.,  XL  §§  57-64,  p.  716). 

To  this  position  the  following  objection  is  urged: 
If  conversion  is  exclusively  the  eflfect  of  divine 
grace,  or  if  conversion  depends  upon  grace  only 
and  in  no  way  on  man's  "conduct,"  ''self-deter- 
mination," etc.,  then  God  appears  to  pass  by  some 
men  with  his  converting  or  regenerating  grace. 
We  hold  fast,  however,  that  a  converted  person  is 
such  only  by  the  grace  of  God;  while  on  the  con- 
trary, an  unconverted  person  is  such  by  his  own 
fault,  because  he  wantonly  resists  the  grace  of  God. 
We  have  here  before  us  a  great  mystery.  We,  of 
course,  know  of  two  ways  by  which  we  might  ex- 
plain away  this  mystery.  We  might  have  recourse 
to  an  absolute  decree  of  reprobation  and  say:  God's 
converting  grace  is  not  universal;  consequently 
only  some  men  are  converted.  But  this  way  of 
solving  the  mystery — the  Calvinistic  way — is  con- 
trary to  the  Scriptures  (i  Tim.  ii.  4;  Acts  xiii.  46; 
vii.  51);  hence  we  can  not  make  use  of  it.  Or  we 
might  say:  conversion  does  not  depend  upon  grace 
alone,  but  to  some  extent  also  on  man's  conduct, 
self-determination,  etc.,  and  this  is  the  reason  why 
not  all  men  are  converted.  But  as  this  way  of  ex- 
plaining the  mystery — the  synergistic  way — is  also 
at  war  with  the  clear  statements  of  Scripture,  we 
leave  the  mystery  unsolved,  hoping  for  a  solution 


OK  THE  SYNODICAL  CONFERENCE.  163 

in  the  world  to  come.  In  the  meantime  we  abide 
by  the  Word  of  God  spoken  through  Hosea:  '*0 
Israel,  thou  hast  destroyed  thyself  \  but  in  me  is 
thine  help  "  (Hosea  xiii.  9). 

OF  PREDESTINATION. 

The  distinguishing  feature  of  our  doctrine  con- 
cerning predestination  or  election  may  be  briefly 
stated  thus:  We  dififer  from  all  those  who  in  any 
way  limit  either  tuiiversal  ox  free  grace. 

There  is  no  predestination  to  death.  As  to  uni- 
versal grace  we  teach  that  God's  earnest,  sincere, 
and  efficacious  grace  extends  to  all  men  alike,  in 
such  a  manner,  that  all  those  who  remain  unbe- 
lievers, remain  such  solely  by  their  own  fault. 
We,  therefore,  reject  the  distinction  between 
common  grace  and  efficacious  (regenerating)  grace, 
the  former  extending  to  all  men,  the  latter  being 
granted  to  the  elect  only.  For  the  grace  granted 
to  those  who  remain  unbelievers  and  against  which 
the  unbelievers  harden  themselves,  Holy  Scripture 
clearly  describes  as  sincere  and  efficacious  grace 
(Acts  xiii.  46;  Matt,  xxiii.  37;  Acts  vii.  51).  Even 
those  passages  of  Scripture  that  treat  of  obduration 
inflicted  by  God  on  some  persons,  do  not  prove  that 
God  passed  them  by,  but  rather  that  He  visited 
these  with  his  saving  grace,  for  obduration  is  rep- 
resented by  Holy  Scripture  as  a  punishment  for 
contemning  and  resistittg  the  grace  of  God.  Yea, 
according  to  Scripture,  some  of  those  who  are  ac- 


164       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

tually  lost,  enjoy  even  a  more  abundant  measure 
of  grace  than  some  of  those  who  are  actually  saved 
(Matt.  xii.  41).  We  teach  and  confess  that  dam- 
nation comes  upon  men  not  for  want  of  grace  on 
the  part  of  God,  but  for  contempt  of  grace  on  the 
part  of  men  (Acts  xiii.  46;  Matt.  xi.  25).  There 
are,  indeed,  some  historical  facts  (e.  g.,  that  many 
nations  are  destitute  of  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel)  which  present  a  seeming  contradiction  to 
the  universality  of  grace.  But  we  deem  Holy  Scrip- 
ture to  be  clearer  than  history.  In  spite  of  all 
seemmg  contradictions,  we  abide  by  the  clear 
statements  of  the  Scripture  asserting  God's  earnest, 
sincere,  and  efficacious  grace  to  be  universal  (i 
Tim.  ii.  4;  Ez.  xxxiii.  11).  There  is  no  predes- 
tination to  unbelief  and  damnation. 

There  is  a  predestination  to  salvation.  Holy 
Scripture,  although  utterly  silent  on  a  predestina- 
tion to  death,  clearly  teaches  a  predestination  to 
salvation^  pertaining  not  to  all  men,  but  only  to 
those  who  are  actually  saved.  Holy  Scripture 
clearly  reveals  the  fact  that  all  those  who  are 
actually  converted,  preserved  in  faith,  and  saved, 
by  the  divinely  established  common  way  of  salva- 
tion, are  from  eternity  in  God's  counsel  elected 
and  predestined  to  be  saved  in  this  way  and  in  this 
order,  Eph.  i.  3-6;  2  Thess.  ii.  13,  14.  *'The 
eternal  election  or  predestination  of  God" — the 
Formula  of  Concord  says — "that  is,  the  ordaining 
of  God  unto  salvation,  does  not  pertain  both  to  the 


OF   THE   SYNODICAL   CONFERENCE.  165 

good  and  the  bad,  but  only  to  the  children  of  God, 
who  were  elected  and  ordained  to  eternal  life,  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  world,  as  Paul,  Eph.  i. 
4,  5,  declares:  *'He  hath  chosen  us  in  Christ 
Jesus,  and  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of 
children." 

Catises  of  eternal  election.  God  elected  those 
who  are  elected  solely  out  of  His  mercy  and  on  ac- 
count of  Christ  s  merit  earned  for  all.  Election 
has  not  taken  place  on  account  of  anything  good ^ 
even  not  on  account  oi  faith ^  which  God  foresaw 
in  the  elect.  According^  to  the  universal  Christian 
order  of  salvation,  all  those  who  are  actually  con- 
verted and  saved,  are  indebted  for  their  conversion 
and  salvation  to  God's  free  grace  in  Christ,  their 
conversion  and  salvation  being  in  no  way  secured 
or  promote  1  by  anything  good  found  in  themselves. 
Even  so  their  eternal  election  to  conversion  and 
salvation  is  not  dependent  on  or  conditioned  by 
anything  good  found  in  themselves,  be  it  called 
*' good  works, "  or  ''good  conduct,"  or  "self-de- 
termination," etc.,  but  eternal  election  solely 
flows  from  God's  free  grace  in  Christ.  This 
doctrine,  and  none  other,  is  revealed  in  Holy 
Scripture.  Holy  Scripture  not  only  teaches  that 
God  has  chosen  us  i7i  Christy  according  to  the  good 
pleasure  of  his  willy  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his 
grace  (Eph.  i.  4-6),  but  expressly  denies  that 
there  be  a  cause  of  election  in  man;  "not  accord- 
ing to  our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose 


1 66       DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  be- 
fore the  world  began"  (2  Tim.  i.  9;  John  xv.  16.) 
In  this  sense  St.  Paul  calls  election  "the  election 
oi grace ^^''  adding  for  the  purpose  of  explanation  as 
to  what  "  grace '^  is:  "and  if  by  grace,  then  is  it 
no  more  of  works;  otherwise  grace  is  no  more 
grace"  (Rom.  xi.  5,  6).  The  I^utheran  Church 
confesses  concerning  the  causes  of  election:  "The 
following  doctrine  is  false  and  erroneous^  namely, 
that  not  the  mercy  of  God  alone,  and  the  most 
holy  merit  of  Christ  are  the  cause,  but  that  in  us 
also  there  is  a  cause  of  the  election  of  God,  on  ac- 
count of  which  God  has  elected  us  to  everlasting 
life."  This  is  Lutheran  doctrine!  The  doctrine 
that  God  elected  on  account  of  foreseen  "good  con- 
duct, "  "  self-determination, "  "  non-resistance, ' ' 
etc.,  we  hold  to  be  both  un-Lutheran  and  un- 
christian, denying  free  grace,  and  thus  falsifying 
the  Christian  way  of  salvation. 

Relation  of  eternal  election  to  the  faith  of  the  elect. 
In  the  decree  of  eternal  predestination  i\\^  faith  of 
the  elect  is  not  presupposed  (as  is  assumed  by  the 
theory  that  predestination  took  place  "in  foresight 
of  faith),"  but  included.  For  God  did  not  first 
elect  them  to  salvation  absolutely,  and  after  that 
decree  to  grant  them  faith  as  the  means  of  obtain- 
ing salvation,  but  when  God  elected  them  He  at 
the  same  time  and  in  the  same  decree  decreed  to 
grant  them  faith  and  perseverance  in  faith.  As 
God  in  time  unites  His  children  to  himself  by  giv- 


OF  THE  SYNODICAL  CONFERENCE.  1 67 

ing  them  faith,  so  />/  eternity  he  united  His  chil- 
dren to  himself  by  decreeing  to  give  them  faith. 
The  very  substance  of  eternal  election  consists  in 
this,  that  God  decreed  to  grant  his  children  faith  in 
Christ  and  preserve  them  therein.  "God  took" 
— the  Formula  of  Concord  says — "so  deep  an  in- 
terest in  the  conversion,  righteousness,  and  salva- 
tion of  each  Christian,  and  so  faithfully  provided 
for  these,  that  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
in  His  counsel  and  purpose,  He  ordained  the  man- 
ner in  which  He  would  bring  me  to  salvation,  and 
preserve  me  there,"  If,  therefore,  the  question  be 
asked  whether  the  faith  that  is  found  in  the  elect  in 
time,  in  the  order  of  thought  precedes  their  eternal 
election  as  a  cause,  condition,  etc.,  or  follows  after 
it  as  a  result,  the  latter  must  be  affirmed  and  the 
former  denied.  For  in  all  passages  of  Scripture 
treating  of  this  matter,  not  only  faith,  but  the  en- 
tire state  of  grace  with  all  the  spiritual  blessings 
bestowed  upon  the  Christians  in  time,  are  repre- 
sented diS  flowing  from  their  eternal  election,  Eph. 
i.  3-5:  "Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  blessed  us  with  all  spiritual 
blessings  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ:  According 
as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  him  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  that  we  should  be  holy  and  without 
blame  before  him  in  love:  Having  predestinated  us 
unto  the  adoption  of  children^ ^  etc..  Acts  xiii.  48: 
"as  many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life  believed. 
See:  2  Tim.   i.  9;  2  Thes.   ii.   13,    14;  Rom.  viii. 


1 68       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

28-39.  Hence  the  Formula  of  Concord  states: 
*'  The  eternal  election  of  God  not  only  foresees  and 
foreknows  tlie  salvation  of  the  elect,  but  through 
his  gracious  will  and  good  pleasure  ifi  Christ  Jesus^ 
is  also  the  cause  which  procures,  works,  facilitates, 
and  promotes  our  salvation  and  whatever  pertains 
to  it."  And  it  is  this  relation  of  the  eternal  elec- 
tion to  their  faith  and  continuance  in  faith  that  the 
Christians  find  such  a  precious  consolation  in  the 
doctrine  of  election,  as  the  Formula  of  Concord 
puts  it:  *'  This  doctrine  also  affords  the  eminent  and 
precious  consolation,  that  God  took  so  deep  an  in- 
terest in  the  conversion,  righteousness,  and  salva- 
tion of  each  Christian,  and  so  faithfully  provided 
for  these,  that  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
in  His  counsel  and  purpose,  He  ordained  the  man- 
ner in  which  He  would  bring  me  to  salvation,  and 
preserve  me  there;  again,  that  he  wished  to  secure 
my  salvation  so  truly  and  firmly,  that  in  his  eternal 
purpose,  which  cannot  fail  or  be  overthrown,  he 
decreed  it,  and  to  secure  it,  placed  it  in  the  omnip- 
otent hands  of  our  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  out  of 
which  none  shall  pluck  us,  John  x.  28.  For,  if 
our  salvation  were  committed  unto  us,  it  might 
easily  be  lost  through  the  weakness  and  wickedness 
of  our  flesh,  or  be  taken  and  plucked  out  of  our 
hands,  by  the  fraud  and  power  of  the  devil  and  of 
the  world.'* 


OF  THE  SYNODICAL  CONFERENCE.  169 

OBJECTION   TO   THIS    DOCTRINE. 

To  this  doctrine  the  following  objection  is  made 
by  Calvinists:  To  affirm  an  election  to  salvation, 
and  to  deny  an  election  to  death,  is  an  ''illogical" 
position,  according  to  the  rules  of  human  reason. 
We  reply  that  we  are  well  aware  of  this,  and, 
morever,  that  we  know  all  the  means  employed 
both  by  Calvinists  and  Synergists,  to  remedy  this 
"inconsistency."  But  this  illogical  position  is 
that  of  the  Scripture.  Holy  Scripture  clearly 
teaches  a  predestination  to  salvation,  which  is  a 
cause  of  the  conversion  and  salvation  of  the  elect; 
but  it  does  not  mention  a  preterition  or  predestina- 
tion to  death,  which  is  a  cause  of  the  unbelief  and 
damnation  of  those  who  perish.  This  is  clearly 
seen  from  Acts  xiii,  48  compared  with  v.  46. 
Verse  48  we  hear  of  believing  Gentiles^  and  their 
faith  is  referred  to  their  eternal  election:  "As 
many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life  believed." 
Verse  46  we  hear  of  unbelieving  Jews ^  but  their  un- 
belief is  not  referred  to  an  eternal  predestination 
to  unbelief  and  death,  or  to  a  lack  of  grace  on  the 
part  of  God,  but  solely  to  the  Jews'  wilful  resist- 
ance to  God's  sincere  and  efficacious  grace;  for 
Paul  and  Barnabas  address  the  Jews  thus:  "See- 
ing ye  put  it  (the  Word  of  God)  from  you,  and 
judge  yourself  unworthy  of  everlasting  life,  lo,  we 
turn  to  the  Gentiles."  It  is  sound  theology  to 
speak  where  Scripture  speaks,  and  to  be  silent 
where  Scripture  is  silent. 


170       DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

The  Synergists  urge  the  objection:  If  you  insist 
upon  the  grace  of  God  and  the  merit  of  Christ  as 
being  the  only  causes  of  eternal  election,  denying 
that  election  was  also  on  account  of  man's  fore- 
seen *'good  conduct,"  "self-determination,"  etc., 
you  will  be  forced  to  admit  that  God's  sincere  and 
efl&cacious  grace  is  not  universal.  This  conclu- 
sion, however,  we  do  not  admit,  since  Scripture 
does  not  admit  it.  Holy  Scripture,  in  revealing 
God's  eternal  election,  never  makes  it  dependent  on 
man's  "good  conduct,"  etc.,  but  merely  on  God's 
free  grace  in  Christ.  Scripture  at  the  same  time 
maintains  the  universality  of  grace.  And  so  do 
we,  maintaining  unimpared  both  free  and  univer' 
sal  grace. 

But  finally  our  doctrine,  to  wit^  that  election  "  is 
also  the  cause  which  procures  and  promotes  our 
salvation  and  whatever  pertains  to  it,"  is  charged 
with  introducing  a  twofold  way  of  salvation,  the 
way  oi grace  pertaining  to  all  men,  and  the  way  of 
election  pertaining  to  those  only  who  are  actually 
saved.  In  answering  this  objection,  we  might 
simply  refer  to  Holy  Scripture,  which  plainly  as- 
serts election  to  be  a  cause  of  the  salvation  of  the 
elect.  But  by  duly  considering  the  matter  it  is 
easily  understood  that  we  do  not  introduce  two 
ways  of  salvation,  but  maintain  the  one  universal 
way  of  grace  in  regard  to  the  elect  also.  For  it  is 
one  and  the  same  efficacious,  saving  grace  by 
which  the  children  of  God  are  saved,  and  against 


OF  THE  SYNODICAL  CONFERENCE.  171 

which  the  children  of  unbelief  harden  themselves. 
And  as  the  children  of  God  during  this  life  are 
brought  to  conversion,  justification,  sanctification, 
etc.,  out  of  pure  ^  free  grace  in  Christ  without  any 
merits  of  their  own,  even  so  they  ds^from  eternity 
elected  to  salvation  and  whatever  pertains  to  it,  not 
in  consideration  of  any  good  conduct  found  with 
them,  but  out  of  inere  grace  in  Christ.  Hence  the 
one  way  of  grace  is  not  destroyed  by  this  doc- 
trine, but  rather  confirjned  by  it,  as  the  Formula 
of  Concord  expressly  remarks:  "It  confirms  vcios\. 
forcibly  the  article,  that  we  are  justified  and  saved 
hy  pure  grace  for  the  sake  of  Christ  alone,  without 
any  of  our  works  and  merit"  But  when  it  is  af- 
firmed that  conversion  and  salvation  do  not  depend 
on  grace  only,  but  to  some  extent  on  man's  conduct 
also,  and,  consequently,  that  eternal  election  also 
took  place  in  consideration  or  foresight  of  this  con- 
duct of  man,  then,  indeed,  the  one  old  Christian 
way  of  salvation  is  entirely  abandoned  and  a  new 
way  of  salvation  is  introduced,  altogether  diflferent 
from  the  revealed  way  of  grace. 

The  mystery  to  be  acknowledged  in  this  doctrine. 
There  are  some  things  in  this  doctrine  which 
we  know,  and  there  are  others  which  we  know 
not.  We  exactly  know  the  reason  why  those 
who  are  actually  saved,  are  elected,  brought  to 
faith  and  preserved  in  it.  It  is,  so  Scripture 
clearly  reveals,  out  of  God's  pure,  free  mercy  in 
Christ.     We  also  know  the  reason  why  those  who 


172        DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

perish  are  not  converted  or  not  preserved  in  faith, 
and  thus  go  to  perdition.  It  is,  as  Scripture  like- 
wise plainly  teaches,  from  their  own  fault,  namely, 
from  their  obstinate  resistance  to  the  saving  grace 
of  God.  But  we  do  not  know  the  reason  why  one 
person  in  prefere7ice  to  another  is  converted  and 
saved,  as  all  men  by  nature  are  equally  guilty  and 
dead  in  sin.  By  acknowledging  a  mystery  right 
here  we  must  not  be  charged  with  Cryptocalvinism. 
For  this  and  no7te  other  is  the  doctrinal  position  of 
the  Lutheran  Church.  The  Formula  of  Concord 
stating  the  case  thus:  "  that  God  gives  his  Word  to 
one  region,  but  not  to  another;  or  that  one  man  is 
hardened,  blinded,  and  given  over  to  a  reprobate 
mind,  but  that  another,  though  equally  guilty,  is 
converted  to  God,"  refers  us  to  Rom.  xi.  33,  34: 
**0  the  depth  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge 
of  God!  how  unsearchable  are  his  judgments,  and 
his  ways  past  finding  out!  For  who  has  known 
the  mind  of  the  Lord?"  The  same  position  is,  as 
with  one  voice,  avowed  by  the  great  Lutheran 
theologians  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Martin 
Chemnitz  e.  g.^  writes  thus:  *'Our  Catechism,  in 
the  third  article  of  our  Christian  faith,  says  that 
by  his  own  reason  or  strength  man  cannot  believe 
in,  or  come  to  Jesus  Christ,  but  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  must  bring  him  to  such  fdiiih,  for  faith  is  a 
gift  of  God ;  how^  then^  is  it  that  God  does  not  be- 
stow such  faith  upon  the  heart  offudas^  so  that  he 
also  could  have  believed  that   Christ   could   help 


OF   THE   SYNODICAL   CONFERENCE.  1 73 

him?  Here  we  must  restrain  our  questions  and 
say  (Rom.  xi.):  'O  the  depth  of  the  riches  both 
of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God!  how  un- 
searchable are  His  judgments,  and  His  wa^'S  past 
finding  out!'  We  are  neither  able ^  nor  biddejt  to 
search  this  otit,  and  must  not  be  absorbed  in  such 
thoughts."  The  mystery  which  the  Lutheran 
Church  acknowledges  at  this  point  may  only  be 
solved  either  by  denying  with  the  Calvinists 
God's  tiniversal  grace,  or  by  denying  with  the 
Synergists  God'sy9'^^  grace,  as  was  shown  before. 

As  to  the  dogmatical  phrase  (which  was  intro- 
duced into  the  Lutheran  Church  by  Aegiditis  Hun* 
7mis)  that  election  has  taken  place  ''in  view  of 
faith,"  we  hold,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  is  not 
taken  from  the  Holy  Scriptures.  In  the  passage 
Rom.  viii.  29:  "whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also 
did  predestinate,"  foreknow  does  not  denote  the 
simple  foreknowledge  of  God — for  thus  a  universal 
election  would  result,  as  God's  simple  foreknowl- 
edge extends  to  all  men — but  foreknow  here  is  used 
in  the  sense  of,  "to  appropriate,  to  make  his  own  be- 
forehand," as  knoiv  and  /ore know  arc  used  in  other 
passages  of  Scripture,  e.  g.,  Amos  iii.  2:  "You  only 
— O  children  of  Israel — have  I  known  of  all  the 
families  of  the  earth."  See  Rom.  xi.  2;  Gal.  iv. 
9;  Ps.  i.  6.  Hence  the  Formula  of  Concord  para- 
phrases Rom.  viii.  29,  30,  thus:  "Whom  He  did 
predestinate,  elect  and  ordain,  them  He  also  called." 
In  the  second  place,  we  hold,  that  the  phrase  "in 


174       DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND  USAGES 

view  of  faith  "  is  not  found  in  the  Lutheran  Confes- 
sions; in  the  third  place,  that  it  does  not  solve  the 
mystery,  if  at  the  same  time  the  biblical  doctrine  be 
maintained  that  faith  is  a  free  gift  of  grace,  and 
in  no  respect  man's  own  work;  in  the  fourth  place 
that,  if  the  phrase  ' '  in  view  of  faith ' '  be  exchanged 
for  *'in  view  of  man's  conduct^''''  "  in  view  of  man's 
self'decisio7t^^^  etc.,  the  mystery,  indeed,  is  solved, 
but  by  the  key  of  synergism.  The  Lutheran 
grounds  are  entirely  abandoned.  For  the  Luth- 
eran Church  confesses:  "The  following  doctrine  is 
false  and  erroneous,  namely,  that  not  the  mercy  of 
God  alone,  and  the  most  holy  merit  of  Christ  are 
the  cause,  but  that  in  us  also  there  is  a  cause  of  the 
election  of  God,  on  account  of  which  God  has  elec- 
ted unto  everlasting  life. ' ' 

Assurance  of  election.  That  a  believing  Chris- 
tian can  become  and  be  certain  of  his  eternal  elec- 
tion, is  a  matter  of  course  with  Holy  Scripture,  for 
Holy  Scripture  uses  eternal  election  as  a  means  to 
comfort  the  Christians  in  their  temptations  and 
tribulations;  for  instance,  Rom.  viii.  33:  "Who 
shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect?" 
As  to  the  quality  or  character  of  certainty,  it  is 
best  described  as  a  certainty  oi  faith ^  for  it  results, 
not  from  searching  into  the  secret  counsel  of  God, 
nor  from  hearing  the  law  and  its  commi nations, 
but  by  attending  to  and  believing  the  Gospel  of 
Christy  in  whom  eternal  election  has  taken  place  in 
eternity  and  is  now  revealed  in  time. 


The  United  Synod  in  the  South 

By  REV.  PROF.  A.  G.  VOIGT,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 

TNTRODUCTORY.— The  article  on  the  United 
1  Synod  in  the  first  edition  of  this  book,  by  the  Rev. 
Edward  T.  Horn,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  was  in  the  main 
historical.  That  historical  sketch  has  permanent 
value.  But  it  was  written  only  seven  years  after  the 
organization  of  the  United  Synod  and  twenty  years 
have  elapsed  since  it  appeared.  In  this  period  the 
United  Synod  has  had  a  prosperous  and  progres- 
sive history;  it  has  become  a  compact  body,  and  it 
has  undergone  a  vigorous  development  on  the  basis 
laid  at  its  organization.  A  historical  sketch  now 
would  necessarily  be  much  more  extended.  It  has 
appeared  to  the  present  writer  that  a  less  historical 
and  more  statical  description  of  the  United  Synod 
will  better  serve  the  purpose  of  this  book  at  this 
time.  For  this  reason  no  attempt  to  revise  the 
former  article  is  made.  The  intrinsic  value  of  that 
article  cannot  be  superseded  by  any  later  writing. 
While  attempting  to  prepare  an  entirely  new  article, 
the  writer  desires  to  record  his  great  indebtedness 
to  the  former  article  by  Dr.  E.  T.  Horn. 

Territory. — The  title  of  this  body  is  The  United 

(175) 


176  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

Synod  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  in  the 
South,  not  of  the  South.  Its  territory  does  not  ex- 
tend to  all  the  Southern  States.  Most  of  its  churches 
are  in  the  South  Atlantic  States,  although  there  is 
a  small  Synod  in  Eastern  Tennessee  and  another  in 
Mississippi,  and  mission  work  is  being  done  in 
Alabama  The  Lutheran  Church  in  the  South  is 
even  now  a  kind  of  diaspora.  The  United  Synod 
consists  of  groups  of  churches  scattered  about  in 
different  sections,  with  intervening  stretches  of  ter- 
ritory, in  which  there  are  no  Lutheran  churches. 
It  is  by  no  means  evenly  distributed  over  the  States 
which  give  names  to  the  Southern  Synods.  Immi- 
gration in  the  eighteenth  century  and  migration 
since  then  have  for  the  most  part  determined  the 
location  of  the  groups  of  churches.  Such  groups 
are  found  in  southeastern  Georgia,  where  the  Salz- 
burg refugees  settled;  in  Orangeburg  County  in 
South  Carolina,  and  again  in  the  territory  west  and 
northwest  of  the  city  of  Columbia,  S.  C. ;  in  the 
w^estern  portion  of  North  Carolina,  but  east  of  the 
mountains,  the  cities  of  Salisbury  and  Hickory  con- 
stituting the  two  focuses  of  this  group;  a  belt  in  the 
southwestern  end  of  Virginia  extending  into  east- 
ern Tennessee  to  Knoxville  and  its  vicinity ;  another 
belt  in  the  Shenandoah  valley  of  Virginia;  a  small 
group  in  southwestern  Georgia,  and  two  in  Missis- 
sippi, due  to  migrations  from  South  Carolina  in 
the  nineteenth  century.     In  the  larger  cities,  Rich- 


OF  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  IN  THE  SOUTH  1 7/ 

mond,  Wilmington,  Charleston,  Savannah,  Augusta, 
Atlanta  and  Jacksonville,  there  are  Lutheran 
churches,  to  which  must  be  added  a  mission  in  Bir- 
mingham, one  in  Chattanooga,  and  missions  in  some 
of  the  growing  towns  of  Florida.  There  are  large 
sections  of  territory,  including  important  cities,  in 
which  there  is  no  Lutheran  population  or  in  which 
the  scattered  Lutherans  have  not  yet  been  gathered 
into  congregations.  The  United  Synod  has  a  large 
and  difficult  mission  field  on  its  ow^n  territory.  Not- 
withstanding this  total  lack  of  territorial  compact- 
ness, the  United  Synod  is  a  compact  and  homo- 
geneous body.  A  common  ancestry,  common  tradi- 
tions of  faith  and  religious  life,  and  a  development 
under  common  influences  have  conspired  to  bring 
its  scattered  elements  into  vital  unity  and  have  made 
of  it  a  confessionally  Lutheran  American  Church. 
Language. — The  United  Synod  is  the  most 
purely  American  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in 
this  country.  It  has  less  foreign-born  membership 
than  any  other  Lutheran  body.  It  also  receives  less 
increment  by  immigration.  Although  several  de- 
cades ago  many  Germans  came,  especially  to  the 
coast  cities,  but  few  come  now.  Norfolk  and  its 
vicinity  is  an  exception  to  this  statement.  There 
have  gathered  there  in  recent  years  quite  a  number 
of  Germans  and  many  more  Scandinavians.  The 
growth  of  the  United  Synod  depends  chiefly  upon 
holding  its  own  children,  and  next  upon  gathering 

12 


178  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

in  Lutherans  who  move  to  the  South  from  the 
North.  The  membership  of  the  churches  in  Vir- 
ginia, North  CaroHna,  South  CaroHna,  Georgia, 
eastern  Tennessee  and  Mississippi,  is,  for  the  most 
part,  made  up  of  the  descendants  of  the  immigrants 
who  came  into  the  Southern  States  in  the  eighteenth 
century.  Consequently  the  United  Synod  is  almost 
entirely  an  English-speaking  body.  There  is  no 
longer  a  single  purely  German  church  in  it,  and 
there  are  only  two  which  have  regular  services  in 
the  German  language  along  with  English  services. 

From  this  predominant  Americanism  of  the 
United  Synod  it  follows  that  it  is  entirely  free  from 
the  vexations  caused  elsewhere  by  the  language 
question.  The  transition  to  English  was  made  in 
most  places  long  ago,  and  in  the  few  churches  in 
which  more  recently  the  English  language  was  in- 
troduced and  the  German  language  discontinued, 
the  transition  was  happily  made  without  friction. 

A  more  important  consequence  of  the  American- 
ism of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  South  is  the  fact 
that  it  was  less  affected  by  the  influences  which  have 
flowed  into  other  parts  of  the  country  from  Ger- 
many for  the  last  three-quarters  of  a  century.  Such 
influences  reached  it  for  the  most  part  only  in- 
directly, as  they  came  in  from  the  North  and  were 
modified  by  prior  absorption  into  the  life  of  the 
Church  in  this  country.  A  correlative  consequence 
was  that  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  South  was 


OF  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  IN  THE  SOUTH  1 79 

more  exposed  to  the  effects  exerted  by  the  general 
reHgious  environment,  which  in  the  South  is  of  a 
decidedly  Reformed  type. 

Tliat  the  feeble  Lutheran  Church  in  the  South, 
struggling  through  the  nineteenth  century  for  its 
perpetuity,  has  under  such  conditions  attained  to  a 
sound  confessional  Lutheranism  is  a  noteworthy 
fact,  especially  when  it  is  remembered  that  Luther- 
ans formed  so  small  a  part  of  the  entire  population. 
When  the  United  Synod  was  organized  in  1886,  its 
membership  was  only  30,000,  and  now  it  is  but 
50,000.  This  adherence  to  Lutheranism  is  an  evi- 
dence of  the  conservative  spirit  of  the  Lutheran 
population.  The  loss  of  many  who  were  absorbed 
by  other  communions  is  to  be  regretted,  but  the  per- 
sistence \vith  which  a  far  greater  number  clung  to 
the  Lutheran  name  and  to  what  the  feeble  Lutheran 
Church  had  to  offer,  deserves  admiration.  The  want 
of  an  English  Lutheran  literature  was  deeply  felt 
in  former  days.  The  attainment  of  a  sound  Luther- 
anism in  spite  of  this  want  is  an  evidence  of  the  very 
great  value  of  the  little  that  existed,  and  of  the 
fidelity  with  which  the  few  books  that  were  avail- 
able were  studied  by  pastors  and  laymen.  One 
work  deserves  special  mention  in  this  connection, 
the  New  Market  edition  of  the  Book  of  Concord, 
first  published  in  185 1. 

General  Doctrinal  Character. — The  United 
Synod  has  no  distinctive  doctrines  apart  from  the 


l8o  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

distinctive  doctrines  of  common  confessional 
Lutheranism.  It  was  born  not  in  controversy,  but 
in  peace;  not  in  disagreement,  but  in  the  realization 
of  concord  in  the  doctrines  set  forth  in  the  Book 
of  Concord;  not  in  antagonism  to  any  other  Luth- 
eran body,  but  in  the  desire  to  promote  ''unification 
of  all  Lutherans  in  one  orthodox  faith."  Nor  has 
the  United  Synod  been  agitated  by  serious  doctrinal 
controversy  since  its  organization  in  1886.  Dis- 
cussions in  regard  to  stricter  or  more  lax  practices 
have  never  led  to  divisions  nor  issued  in  official 
pronouncements  of  distinctive  developments  of  con- 
fessional position.  The  spirit  of  concord,  working 
towards  a  more  perfect  unanimity  in  all  parts,  has 
been  the  prevailing  spirit,  and  at  the  present  time 
the  United  Synod  rejoices  that  by  the  grace  of  God 
it  has  been  stablished,  strengthened  and  settled  in 
the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation  as  formulated  in 
the  Confessions  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 

The  History  Back  of  Its  Basis. — This  history 
has  been  clearly  and  fully  narrated  by  Dr.  E.  T. 
Horn  in  the  first  edition  of  this  book.  A  briefer  ac- 
count will  be  presented  here.  The  name  United 
Synod  indicates  that  previous  to  its  organization 
there  was  disunion  among  the  Lutherans  in  the 
South  Atlantic  States.  The  line  of  cleavage  was 
marked  by  the  opposing  attitude  of  the  two  fac- 
tions in  relation  to  the  General  Synod  from  the  date 
of  its  organization  in  1820.    The  doctrinal  position, 


OF  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  IN  THE  SOUTH  l8l 

the  practical  undertakings,  the  endeavors  to  in- 
crease efficiency  by  organization,  the  fluctuations  in 
the  appreciation  of  liistorical  Lutheranism,  the 
openness  to  influences  that  came  from  without  the 
Lutheran  Church;  in  short,  all  that  characterized 
the  General  Synod  in  the  first  half  of  its  history, 
was  shared  by  most  Lutherans  in  the  South.  They 
were  organized  in  district  Synods  in  Virginia, 
North  Carolina  and  South  Carolina.  But  there 
were  Lutherans  not  a  few  who  from  the  beginning 
were  opposed  to  the  General  Synod  and  all  that  it 
represented,  its  spirit  of  organization  as  well  as 
its  lax  doctrinal  position.  These  became  united  in 
a  body  called  the  Tennessee  Synod,  a  body  which 
still  exists  by  that  name,  although  it  has  no  longer 
any  churches  in  Tennessee.  The  name  arose  from 
the  territory  in  which  it  was  organized.  Its  strength 
always  has  been  in  western  North  Carolina,  al- 
though it  has  a  number  of  churches  in  Virginia  and 
South  Carolina.  The  Holston  Synod  now  occupies 
the  field  in  eastern  Tennessee.  From  the  beginning 
these  Lutherans  cultivated  a  strict  adherence  to  the 
Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  writings 
of  Lutlier,  lived  and  labored  with  the  conviction 
of  a  vocation  to  defend  the  faith,  and  developed  a 
jealousy  of  the  concentration  of  power  in  organi- 
zations. Time  happily  brought  changes.  Luther- 
ans in  the  South  could  not  remain,  untouched  by 
the  influences  that  were  at  work  in  other  parts  of 


l82  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

the  country.  The  increasing  appreciation  of  con- 
fessional Lutheranism,  which  in  the  middle  half 
of  the  nineteenth  century  passed  over  from  Ger- 
many into  and  through  this  country,  also  gradually 
permeated  the  South.  It  served  to  deepen  the  de- 
votion of  the  Tennessee  Synod  to  the  historic  Luth- 
eran Confessions,  and  to  awaken  in  the  other  Syn- 
ods a  growing  esteem  and  affection  for  the  same 
Confessions.  Hence,  when  the  war  brought  about 
a  disruption  of  the  General  Synod  and  a  separate 
Southern  body,  the  General  Synod  of  the  Evangel- 
ical Lutheran  Church  in  the  Confederate  States  of 
America  was  formed  at  Concord  in  1863,  the  breath 
of  a  more  conscious  distinctive  Lutheranism  in  it 
was  soon  perceptible.  In  thecrippled condition  of  the 
country  during  and  after  the  war  the  Southern  Gen- 
eral Synod  never  was  able  to  attain  to  much 
strength  and  vigor.  Peace  and  more  settled  con- 
ditions first  had  to  come.  The  Tennessee  Synod 
was  not  a  part  of  it.  But  the  desire  for  union  be- 
gan to  stir.  At  the  convention  of  1867  a  commis- 
sioner from  the  Tennessee  Synod  to  confer  with  the 
General  Synod  (South)  upon  the  subject  of  union 
was  received.  The  reply  to  his  overture  was  sig- 
nificant : 

^'Resolved,  That  we  will  cordially  receive  said  Synod  as  an 
integral  part  of  this  body,  on  the  truly  Lutheran  basis  which 
we  have  adopted,  and  in  accordance  with  which  we  feel  bound 
as  an  ecclesiastical   body  to  withhold   our  sanction   or   im- 


OF  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  IN  THE  SOUTH  183 

primatur  from  any  religious  publication,  of  whatever  form, 
which  shall  inculcate  principles  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  as  construed  and  defended  by  our 
Church,  in  her  symbolical  writings." 

These  negotiations  led  to  no  practical  result.  But 
what  is  significant  in  this  reply  is  that  here  already 
was  an  anticipation  of  the  acceptance  of  all  the 
Symbolical  Books.  However,  the  time  was  not  yet 
ripe  for  that  step  and  for  a  union  on  that  basis. 
After  a  number  of  years  the  desire  for  union  as- 
sumed the  form  of  an  endeavor  to  come  together 
in  an  entirely  new  organization  on  the  basis  of  the 
Book  of  Concord.  A  diet  of  representatives  from 
seven  Southern  Synods  assembled  at  Salisbury  in 
1884  and  approved  a  confessional  basis  of  union 
and  a  draft  of  a  proposed  constitution.  At  a  second 
diet,  at  Roanoke  in  1886,  the  work  of  union  was 
consummated  and  the  first  session  of  the  United 
Synod  was  held. 

The  doctrinal  basis,  as  contained  in  the  constitu- 
tion, is  in  the  terms  following : 

*'The  doctrinal  basis  of  the  organization  shall  be : 
"i.  The  Holy  Scriptures,  the  inspired  Writings  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  the  only  standard  of  doctrine  and  church 
discipline. 

"2.  As  a  true  and  faithful  exhibition  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  in  regard  to  matters  of  faith  and  practice, 
the  three  ancient  symbols,  the  Apostolic,  the  Nicene  and  the 
Athanasian  Creeds  and  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession 
of  Faith ;  also  the  other  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church,  viz. :  The  Apology,  the  Smalcald  Articles, 


184  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

the  Smaller  and  Larger  Catechisms  of  Luther  and  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  consisting  of  the  Epitome  and  Full  Declaration, 
as  they  are  set  forth,  defined  and  published  in  the  Christian 
Book  of  Concord  or  the  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  published  in  the  year  1580  (see  the  Epitome,  Of  the 
Compendious  Rule  and  Standard  and  the  Solid  Declaration — 
Preface),  as  true  and  Scriptural  developments  of  the  doc- 
trines taught  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  in  the  perfect 
harmony  of  one  and  the  same  pure,  Scriptural  faith." 

The  union  was  formed,  and  still  it  required  a 
number  of  years  to  coalesce.  It  was  peculiarly  dif- 
ficult for  the  Tennessee  Synod  with  its  distinctive 
development  to  become  adjusted  to  perfect  co-ope- 
ration in  the  practical  work  in  which  the  United 
Synod,  carrying  forward  the  work  begun  by  the 
General  Synod  South,  labored  to  fulfill  its  mission 
at  home  and  abroad  and  to  promote  its  upbuilding. 
The  discussion  of  the  questions  connected  with  pul- 
pit and  altar  fellowship,  with  Chiliasm  and  with 
secret  societies,  which  had  started  in  the  middle 
West,  and  from  there  had  spread  to  other  parts  of 
the  country,  also  penetrated  the  South.  Not  many 
years  before  the  organization  of  the  United  Synod 
the  Tennessee  Synod  had  taken  its  position  moder- 
ately, yet  firml}^,  on  these  questions  in  favor  of  a 
strict  practice.  The  United  Synod  declined  to  leg- 
islate on  these  subjects.  Accordingly  the  Tennessee 
Synod,  in  order  not  to  be  inconsistent  with  its  own 
principles,  felt  unable  to  participate  in  the  common 
missionary  and  educational  operations  of  the  United 


OF  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  IN  THE  SOUTH  185 

Synod  unless  these  principles  were  recognized  in 
them.  It  was  a  severe  strain  upon  the  bond  of  union 
and  there  was  danger  of  a  new  rupture.  The  diffi- 
culty was  finally  overcome  at  the  convention  held 
at  Winston- Salem,  N.  C,  in  1900,  by  the  adoption 
of  several  resolutions,  the  chief  of  which  is  inserted 
here : 

"That  in  view  of  the  position  heretofore  occupied  by  the 
Tennessee  Synod  with  regard  to  full  and  active  co-operation 
with  this  body,  this  United  Synod  does  now  assure  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod  that  it  is  most  sincerely  desirous,  in  the  prose- 
cution of  our  common  work,  that  nothing  may  be  done  calcu- 
lated to  burden  the  consciences  of  the  brethren  of  any  of  our 
Synods.  All  our  Synods  are  founded  on  the  Word  of  God, 
and  the  confessions  of  the  Church  in  accordance  with  it,  and 
all  are  equally  bound  to  frame  their  practice  and  fulfill  their 
duty  in  accordance  with  a  candid  and  conscientious  conviction 
of  the  true  and  proper  sense  of  that  Word,  and  our  confes- 
sions on   it   founded." 

Since  then  the  Tennessee  Synod  has  cordially  co- 
operated in  the  common  work,  and  with  united 
effort  all  the  Synods  in  the  South  are  now  work- 
ing together  to  carry  out  practically  the  aim  of  the 
United  Synod  as  it  is  set  forth  in  its  constitution 
in  these  terms : 

"The  object  and  aim  of  the  United  Synod  shall  be  outward 
expression  of  the  spiritual  unity  of  the  Synods  concerned; 
mutual  strengthening  in  faith  and  confession ;  unification  of 
all  Lutherans  in  one  orthodox  faith,  and  mutual  co-operation 
Ln  the  promotion  of  the  more  general  interests  of  the  Church; 


I86  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

as  books  of  worship,  liturgies,  theological  seminaries,  charit- 
able institutions,  immigrant  missions,  foreign  missions  and 
important  home  missionary  operations." 

Doctrinal  Position  and  Attitude. — The 
United  Synod  has  devoted  its  energies  to  practical 
work  rather  than  to  doctrinal  discussion.  The  in- 
ference must  not  be  drawn  from  this  statement  that 
it  holds  the  doctrines  of  its  confessional  basis  laxly. 
The  Church  in  the  South  is  ardently  devoted  to 
the  doctrinal  system  embraced  in  the  Symbolical 
Books.  Having  come  to  an  appreciation  of  them 
through  earnest  study  in  the  pursuit  of  peace  and 
the  removal  of  division,  Lutherans  in  the  South 
know  the  value  of  these  doctrines.  They  are  vital 
in  the  life  of  congregations.  There  is  no  feeling 
that  they  are  in  any  part  becoming  obsolete.  In  the 
quiet  of  their  studies  and  in  conferences  the  pastors 
exercise  themselves  to  become  more  perfectly 
grounded  in  the  doctrinal  inheritance  of  the  Luth- 
eran Church.  \Kt  the  same  time  a  deeping  indoctri- 
nation and  a  more  perfect  training  in  Lutheran 
usages  are  steadily  carried  on  in  the  congregations. 
The  Southern  Lutheran  believes  without  qualifica- 
tion in  the  Bible  as  the  inspired  Word  of  God.  He 
believes  that  the  doctrines  contained  in  Luther's 
Catechism,  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  other 
confessions  in  the  Book  of  Concord  are  grounded 
in  the  Word  of  the  Scriptures.  He  especially  real- 
izes the  vital  importance  of  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 


OF  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  IN  THE  SOUTH  187 

cation  by  faith  with  its  presuppositions  of  original 
sin  and  the  condemnatory  character  of  all  sin,  and 
with  its  implications  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  and 
the  vicarious  atonement  by  His  merits.  He  is  very 
much  awake  to  the  importance  of  the  means  of 
grace.  Word  and  sacraments,  for  the  application  of 
salvation,  including  the  realistic  conception  of  bap- 
tism as  a  means  of  regeneration  and  of  the  com- 
munion as  the  imparting  of  the  true  body  and  blood 
of  Christ. 

Lutherans  in  the  United  Synod  are  averse  to  the 
speculative  and  critical  spirit,  which  resolves  these 
doctrines  into  imperfect  expressions  of  abstract 
ideas  or  disintegrates  them  into  mere  changing 
historical  conceptions.  The  confessional  doctrines 
are  for  them,  a  substantial  body  of  divinely  given 
truth,  which  they  are  unwilling  to  have  distorted, 
mutilated,  curtailed  or  diluted.  Modern  specu- 
lative and  critical  attempts  at  restatement  and  re- 
interpretation  of  Christianity  have  found  as  little 
entrance  into  the  United  Synod  as  anywhere. 

Firm  as  they  are  in  their  convictions.  Southern 
Lutherans  are  generally  averse  to  controversy.  This 
is  probably  the  true  explanation  of  the  conservative 
attitude  of  the  United  Synod  towards  the  questions 
connected  with  pulpit  and  altar  fellowship  and  secret 
societies.  There  are  differences  of  view  on  these 
questions  existing  in  the  United  Synod.  But  the  dis- 
position has  always  been  not  to  fight  the  differences 


1 88  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

out,  but  to  wait  for  time  to  bring  about  unanimity  in 
regard  to  them.  In  the  formation  of  the  United 
Synod  pecuHar  circumstances  thrust  these  questions 
upon  the  notice  of  the  body ;  but  it  decHned  to  legis- 
late in  regard  to  them  because  it  was  unwilling  to 
go  through  the  throes  of  controversy  which  a  de- 
cision upon  them  involved.  Combined  with  this 
aversion  to  controversy  there  exists  an  evangelical 
impatience  of  legal  constraint,  which  impels  men  to 
act  upon  principle  rather  than  by  rule.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  and  actual  practice  Lutheran  ministers  in  the 
United  Synod  do  not  invite  others  to  occupy  their 
pulpits  indiscriminately;  and,  although  in  some 
churches  the  custom  of  extending  a  general  invita- 
tion at  communion  still  continues  from  earlier  times, 
the  practice  is  diminishing,  and  in  most  churches  it 
has  passed  away  with  the  introduction  of  the  Com- 
mon Service.  As  to  secret  societies,  there  is  not 
much  agitation  against  them  except  in  the  Tennessee 
Synod,  and  a  number  of  United  Synod  ministers 
are  known  to  be  members  of  such  orders;  but  the 
sentiment  of  most  ministers  is  unfavorable  to  them. 
It  has  already  been  stated  that  the  Tennessee  Synod 
is  unique  among  the  Synods  constituting  the  United 
Synod  in  having  rules  against  pulpit  and  altar  fel- 
lowship and  secret  societies ;  and  the  United  Synod 
has  pledged  itself  not  to  employ  in  its  general  work, 
in  its  theological  seminary,  in  its  mission  opera- 
tions, in  the  editing  of  its  official  organ,  any  person 


OF  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  IN  THE  SOUTH  189 

who  would   foster  secretism  or  unionistic   fellow- 
ship. 

Relation  to  Other  Communions. — In  relation 
to  other  communions  the  United  Synod  is  neither 
exclusive  nor  undifferentiating.  Recognition  of 
common  Christianity  and  general  religious  and 
moral  interests  prevents  the  spirit  of  aloofness;  but 
consciousness  of  the  difference  between  the  Luth- 
eran Church  and  others  begets  a  reserve  towards 
other  bodies  and  towards  interdenominational  move- 
ments and  organizations.  The  United  Synod  and 
the  Synods  that  compose  it,  do  not  exchange  dele- 
gates or  official  visitors  with  any  but  Lutheran 
bodies,  and  in  the  recognition  of  occasional  visitors 
at  Synodical  conventions  a  well-defined  distinction 
is  made  between  Lutherans  and  others.  On  the 
other  hand  invitations  to  occupy  pulpits  of  other 
denominations  at  Synodical  conventions  are  freely 
accepted.  The  United  Synod  has,  during  its  exist- 
ence never  participated  in  any  interdenomina- 
tional organization,  but  pastors  and  laymen  in  the 
South  frequently  join  in  interdenominational  move- 
ments. Co-operation  with  others,  if  it  appears 
really  profitable,  is  not  regarded  as  a  violation  of 
confessional  consistency.  At  the  same  time  there  is 
a  general  disposition  to  exercise  caution  against  en- 
tangling alliances.  Lutherans  in  the  South  do  not 
generally  seek  to  make  themselves  prominent  in  in- 
terdenominational  associations.     But  ministers  of 


190  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

the  United  Synod  freely  and  cordially  enter  into 
local  ministerial  associations.  The  general  attitude 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  South  towards  other 
communions  is  to  wish  them  well,  but  to  do  its 
share  of  common  Christian  work  in  its  own  dis- 
tinctive way.  Rigid  exclusiveness  is  quite  foreign 
to  its  spirit,  but  regardlessness  for  Lutheran  con- 
sistency equally  so. 

Piety. — The  true  character  of  an  ecclesiastical 
body  is  not  decided  by  its  formal  doctrinal  state- 
ments alone.  The  tone  and  temper  in  which  these 
are  maintained  and  applied  are  also  important.  To 
illustrate  what  is  meant  by  this  statement  let  it  be 
recalled  that  the  pietism  of  Spener  at  the  end  of 
the  seventeenth  century  involved  no  conscious  de- 
parture from  the  orthodox  Lutheran  theology,  and 
yet  there  was  a  great  difference  in  the  early  part  of 
the  eighteenth  century  between  a  pietist  and  an  or- 
thodox anti-pietist  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  As  was 
the  case  elsewhere  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  the  South  entered  upon  the 
historic  inheritance  of  Lutheranism  as  it  was  modi- 
fied by  pietism.  To  this  day  a  large  measure  of  this 
pietistic  temper  has  been  retained.  Vital  godliness, 
consistent  Christian  conduct,  the  practice  of  piety 
and  active  Christianity  are  realized  to  be  the  end 
and  aim  of  Church  life,  and  the  Lutheran  doctrines 
are  loved  and  taught  as  means  to  produce  this  end. 
It  is  not  the  theologically  speculative  side  of  the 


OF  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  IN  THE  SOUTH  I9I 

doctrinal  system  nor  its  formal  logical  consistency 
that  is  of  supreme  interest  to  the  Southern  Lutheran 
mind;  it  is  rather  the  working  power,  the  dynamic 
of  doctrinal  truth  and  the  relation  of  theology  to 
life  and  practice  that  is  of  interest.  In  other  words, 
doctrine  is  studied  and  held  fast  as  the  basis  of  ef- 
fective preaching.  The  Lutheran  system  is  ac- 
cepted from  the  heart  as  the  expression  of  the  truth 
divinely  given  by  revelation,  divinely  recorded  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures  by  inspiration,  and  divinely  effi- 
cacious to  unite  the  soul  to  God  in  a  living  faith  and 
in  a  pious  life. 

Trend  Toward  Stricter  Lutheranism. — ^Al- 
most a  generation  has  passed  since  the  formation 
of  the  United  Synod.  From  the  questionings  and 
searchings  of  the  period  preceding  that  consumma- 
tion to  find  the  true  Lutheran  doctrine  the  present 
generation  has  inherited  the  tendency  towards 
strict,  uncompromising,  undiluted  Lutheranism  in 
faith  and  usages.  If  any  doctrine  or  usage  can  be 
proved  historically  Lutheran,  that  will  secure  its 
acceptance  in  any  Southern  Lutheran  Synod.  The 
adjective  Lutheran  is  very  much  in  use  to  charac- 
terize and  to  test  things.  But  the  standard  by  which 
matters  are  judged  to  be  Lutheran  is  the  historic 
standard  of  what  prevailed  in  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries.  An  example  will  illustrate 
in  a  striking  way  this  tendency  to  a  stiff er  Luther- 
anism.    A  generation  ago  it  was  not  uncommon  to 


192  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

Speak  of  confirmation  as  joining  the  Church.  Even 
the  hymnal  of  the  General  Synod  South,  which  re- 
mained in  use  until  1906,  classed  confirmation 
hymns  under  the  heading,  ''Joining  the  Church." 
Now  this  form  of  expression  is  discountenanced 
and  stress  is  laid  upon  the  fact  that  baptized  infants 
are  already  members  of  the  Church.  The  former 
custom  of  having  a  series  of  services,  culminating 
in  what  was  called  "Throwing  open  the  doors  of 
the  Church"  for  the  reception  of  members,  has  also 
passed  away.  Catechetical  preparation  for  confirma- 
tion is  the  usage  now.  But  it  must  also  be  remarked 
that  this  tendency  towards  a  more  rigid  Lutheran- 
ism  is  tempered  on  the  one  hand  by  the  practical 
disposition  to  labor  and  to  wait  until  education  has 
prepared  minds  for  other  views  and  other  practices, 
and  on  the  other  by  a  non-exclusive  spirit  which 
does  not  shun  contact  with  Christians  of  other  com- 
munions. 

Practical  Activity. — The  best  thought  and 
strength  of  the  United  Synod  are  not  given  to 
learned  theology,  but  to  Christian  endeavor.  This 
is  not  due  to  a  lack  of  scholarly  taste  or  a  want  of 
theological  interest.  But  in  the  face  of  immediate 
constructive  demands,  pastoral,  institutional  and  ad- 
ministrative, the  leisure  for  concentrated,  consecu- 
tive study  cannot  easih^  be  found.  Moreover,  small 
salaries  forbid  the  purchase  of  large  private  libra- 
ries,  and  public  libraries  stocked  with  theological 


OF  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  IN  THE  SOUTH  1 93 

literature  are  not  often  within  reach.  In  spite  of 
these  drawbacks,  the  Lutheran  ministers  of  the 
South,  with  the  help  of  such  books  as  are  available, 
liave  maintained  a  creditable  degree  of  scholarship, 
and  a  few  names  might  be  honorably  mentioned  of 
living  men  who  have  contributed  to  the  literature 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country.  But  gen- 
erally the  reading  and  study  of  Southern  Lutherans 
is  necessarily  directed  to  the  immediate  work  before 
them,  the  work  of  building  up  churches  and  insti- 
tutions and  of  perfecting  organization  and  efficiency. 
The  necessities  of  an  ecclcsia  plantanda,  sl  Church 
that  is  still  in  the  process  of  foundation,  draw  the 
best  efforts  of  the  body  away  from  more  technical 
studies  to  practical  activities.  Missions,  educational 
and  charitable  work  are  the  paramount  interests.  A' 
growing  benevolence  may  justly  be  claimed  as  a 
distinctive  feature.  In  proportion  to  the  amount  of 
wealth  held  by  Southern  Lutherans,  who  are  still 
for  the  most  part  a  rural  people,  their  benevolence 
measures  up  to  the  highest  level  found  among 
Lutherans  in  this  country,  and  possibly  exceeds  it. 
The  financial  condition  of  the  South  must  be  borne 
in  mind.  It  is  a  money-borrowing,  not  a  money- 
lending  section  of  country.  The  larger  industrial 
and  commercial  enterprises  in  the  South  are  de- 
pendent upon  capital  borrowed  elsewhere.  People 
who  are  regarded  as  living  in  affluence  in  the  South 
would  hardly  be  considered  rich  in  the  North.  It  is 
13 


194  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

doubtful  whether  there  is  a  single  millionaire  in  the 
Southern  Lutheran  Church.  Ministers  and  profes- 
sors work  for  meager  salaries,  because  salaries  are 
graded  by  the  scale  of  living  in  the  congregations. 
When  these  conditions  are  taken  into  consideration 
it  is  greatly  to  the  credit  of  the  United  Synod  that 
it  has  so  many  fairly  well-equipped  institutions  and 
carries  on  so  vigorous  a  mission  work.  A  clearer 
idea  of  how  faith  expresses  itself  in  deeds  in  the 
United  Synod  will  be  gained  by  the  consideration 
of  particular  data. 

Missions. — Since  1892  the  United  Synod  has  had 
its  own  foreign  mission  in  Japan.  The  work  was 
begun  in  Saga  and  has  since  extended  through  the 
island  of  Kiushiu  to  six  cities  and  several  minor 
stations.  The  missionary  force  consists  of  5  or- 
dained missionaries,  3  wives  of  missionaries,  and 
10  native  workers.  Two  young  women  were  sent 
out  just  recentty.  A  large  and  rapidly  growing 
school  for  boys  has  been  established  at  Kuma- 
moto  with  a  faculty  of  19  professors,  15  of  them 
natives,  the  others  missionaries.  A  Bible  or  theo- 
logical school  for  future  evangelists  is  also  main- 
tained in  the  same  city. 

The  home  mission  work  of  the  United  Synod 
has  its  ground  in  two  facts :  the  removal  of  members 
of  its  country  churches  to  the  rapidly  growing 
towns,  and  the  collecting  of  Lutherans  from  all 
sections  in  the  larger  cities  of  the  South.     In  the 


OF  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  IN  THE  SOUTH  I95 

smaller  towns  most  of  the  mission  work  is  cared 
for  by  the  district  Synods.  The  larger  points  are 
directly  cared  for  by  the  general  body  through  its 
Home  Mission  Board.  At  present  this  Board  sup- 
ports 15  missions  in  the  States  of  Virginia,  North 
Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida,  Ten- 
nessee, Alabama  and  Mississippi.  The  district  Syn- 
ods support  50  more  missions.  For  a  small  body 
this  Home  Mission  work  is  a  heavy  burden,  but  it 
is  borne  courageously  and  liberally. 

Charitable  Institutions. — The  United  Synod  has 
its  own  Orplian  Flome,  located  at  Salem,  Va.,  in 
which  over  one  hundred  orphans  are  provided  for. 
The  South  Carolina  Synod  has  a  new  charitable 
institution  in  the  Lowman  Home  for  Incurables, 
located  at  White  Rock,  S.  C.  This  institution  will 
probably  soon  pass  over  to  the  direct  control  of  the 
United  Synod.  The  Lutheran  churches  of  Charles- 
ton,' S.  C,  maintain  the  Francke  Home  for  the 
Aged. 

Publication. — The  United  Synod  owns  a  valuable 
Publication  House  in  Columbia,  S.  C,  from  which 
issue  two  church  papers,  the  Lutheran  Church  Vis- 
itor, the  official  organ  of  the  United  Synod,  and 
Tidings,  for  the  young,  besides  other  publications, 
among  them  the  Book  of  Worship  and  a  Sunday 
School  Hymnal.  This  Publication  House  carries 
on  a  regular  business  in  books  and  church  supplies, 
and  also  a  general  printing  business. 


I9t>  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

Educational  Institutions. — In  proportion  to  its 
strength  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  bounds  of  the 
United  Synod  has  more  higher  grade  educational  in- 
stitutions than  any  Lutheran  body  in  the  country, 
and  probably  more  college  students,  both  male  and 
female.  There  are  no  parochial  schools,  but  there 
are  two  colleges  for  men,  one  co-educational  college, 
four  colleges  for  women,  one  collegiate  institution 
for  boys  and  one  seminary  for  girls.  Li  these 
various  institutions  there  are  about  looo  students. 
For  a  body  of  50,000  communicants  this  is  certainly 
a  considerable  educational  w^ork.  These  institu- 
tions, together  with  the  theological  seminary  owned 
by  the  United  Synod,  have  property  in  grounds  and 
buildings  worth  about  $900,000.00.  As  has  just 
been  indicated,  the  United  Synod  has  under  its  own 
immediate  government  and  control  a  theological 
seminary,  which  is  located  at  Columbia,  S.  C,  and 
which  is  housed  in  a  beautiful  new  building.  Roa- 
noke College  and  Roanoke  College  for  Women,  both 
located  at  Salem,  Va.,  are  under  the  direction  of 
the  Virginia  and  Southwestern  Virginia  Synods. 
Lenoir  College,  at  Hickory,  N.  C,  is  the  institution 
of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  and  Newberry  College,  at 
Newberry,  S.  C,  is  the  institution  of  the  South 
Carolina  Synod,  which  also  owns  Summerland  Col- 
lege for  women,  recently  established  near  Leesville, 
S.  C.  The  North  Carolina  Collegiate  Institute  and 
Mont   Amoena   Seminary,   one    for   boys   and   the 


OF  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  IN  THE  SOUTH  I97 

Other  for  girls,  are  both  located  at  Mount  Pleasant, 
N.  C,  and  are  both  under  the  control  of  the  North 
Carolina  Synod.  Two  colleges  for  women,  Eliza- 
beth College,  at  Charlotte,  N.  C,  and  Marion  Col- 
lege, at  Marion,  Va.,  are  privately  owned  institu- 
tions, but  managed  under  Lutheran  auspices. 

Usages. — The  first  characteristic  to  note  in.  re- 
gard to  usages  in  the  United  Synod  is  the  spirit  of 
liberty  in  respect  to  outward  forms  of  church  life. 
Fixed  forms  are  neither  shunned  nor  slavishly  ob- 
served. Both  ministers  and  congregations  assert 
their  freedom  and  sometimes  their  individualism 
according  to  circumstances  in  all  that  pertains  to  the 
external  conduct  of  worship  or  church  work. 

A  second  characteristic  is  that  the  prevailing 
forms  of  church  life  agree  with  those  in  other  parts 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country.  Extremes 
are  avoided.  Nothing  like  a  tendency  towards 
ritualism  exists.  The  United  Synod  is  heartily  but 
moderately  liturgical.  The  spirit  of  freedom  leads 
to  a  ready  submission  to  improved  forms  as  soon 
as  good  reason  is  shown  for  a  change.  Hence  the 
changes  in  outward  usages  in  the  South  have  kept 
pace  with  those  in  other  sections  of  the  Lutheran 
Church. 

These  general  statements  having  been  premised, 
it  will  be  convenient  to  consider  particular  usages 
under  three  heads:  The  form  of  public  worship; 
the  instruction  of  the  Church;  special  services. 


198  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

The  Form  of  Public  Worship. — For  the  last  fifty 
years  the  churches  in  the  South  have  been  gradu- 
ally trained  to  use  and  love  liturgical  service.  One 
of  the  first  acts  of  the  General  Synod  (South)  after 
its  organization  during  the  war  was  the  preparation 
and  publication  of  a  Book  of  Worship,  which  con- 
tained a  liturgical  service.  Interest  in  it  grew  rap- 
idly, and  it  steadily  made  its  way  towards  general 
acceptance.  Out  of  the  effort  to  improve  this  Book 
of  Worship  came  the  impulse  to  the  preparation  of 
the  Common  Service.  In  his  article  on  the  United 
Synod  in  the  former  edition  of  this  book  Dr.  Ed- 
ward T.  Horn  has  so  interestingly  described  these 
facts  that  his  excellent  account  is  here  inserted. 
After  describing  the  Book  of  Worship  of  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  (South)  Dr.  Horn  continues: 

"Meanwhile  the  General  Synod  was  engaged  in  a  continual 
effort  to  amend  and  improve  the  book.  Every  successive 
edition  showed  the  removal  of  typographical  errors  and  the 
improvement  of  rubrical  directions.  In  1876  committees  were 
appointed  to  revise  various  parts  of  the  book ;  and  at  that 
meeting  the  committee  was  instructed  'to  confer  with  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  General  Synod  in  the  United  States 
and  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  General  Council  in  America 
with  regard  to  the  feasibility  of  adopting  but  one  book,  con- 
taining the  same  hymns  and  the  same  order  of  services  and 
liturgic  forms,  to  be  used  in  the  public  worship  of  God  in  all 
the  English-speaking  Evangelical  Lutheran  churches  in  the 
United  States.'  This  was  the  beginning  of  the  movement 
to  secure  a  Common  Service.  It  had  been  suggested  in  1870, 
in  a  letter  from  the  venerable  Dr.  Bachman  to  the  General 
Synod,  but  the  time   was  not  then   ripe.     The   matter  was 


OF  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  IN  THE  SOUTH  I99 

brought  up  again  in  1878,  and  steps  were  taken  to  urge  the 
northern  bodies  to  a  definite  reply.  At  the  same  meeting  the 
committee  was  enlarged  and  the  object  of  the  continuous 
amendment  of  the  Service  was  declared  to  be  'the  ultimate 
attainment  of  the  distinctively  Lutheran  cultus,  breathing  the 
spirit  of  our  Evangelical  faith,  and  which  is  a  legitimate  out- 
growth therefrom,  and  at  the  same  time  is  in  full  accord 
with  the  Service  of  the  Primitive  Church.'  In  1882  the  General 
Synod  referred  to  this  committee  many  proposed  changes, 
and  in  1884  adopted  a  long  series  of  them;  so  that,  if  the 
Common  Service  had  not  been  finally  adopted,  the  Southern 
Book  of  Worship,  in  its  new  edition,  would  have  contained  the 
Introits  and  Collects  for  the  Church  Year,  the  prescription  of 
the  Epistles  and  Gospels,  of  the  Nicene  Creed  and  of  the 
Proper  Prefaces  in  the  Communion  Service.  The  determination 
was  asserted  *to  prosecute  the  revision  of  the  Book  of  Wor- 
ship in  honest  fidelity  to  the  spirit  and  history  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  in  order  that,  at  all  events,  we  may  possess  a  ritual 
as  nearly  correct  as  it  can  be  made.'  In  1886  the  Protocol  of 
the  Joint  Committee  outlining  the  Common  Service  was  pre- 
sented and  approved.  The  accession  of  the  Tennessee  and 
Holston  Synods  did  not  take  from  the  liturgical  spirit  and 
zeal  of  the  Southern  churches.  Before,  they  had  used  in 
many  of  their  churches  the  Church  Book,  published  by  the 
General  Council  in  1868;  based,  like  the  Book  of  Worship, 
on  the  provisional  service  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  and 
representing  a  liturgical  progress  which  culminated  in  the 
Common  Service.  Accordingly  the  outline  of  the  Common 
Service  was  adopted  by  the  United  Synod  immediately  on  its 
organization,  and  in  1888  the  complete  manuscript  was  laid 
before  it  and  approved.  On  the  publication  of  the  Common 
Service  in  1888,  it  met  with  an  immediate  welcome  in  all  the 
Southern  Synods." 


So  for  Dr.  Horn,  and  we  can  continue  and  state 
that  at  the  present  time  the  Common   Serv^ice  is 


200  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

generally  used  and  loved  both  in  country  and  city 
churches.  It  is  not  a  slavish  adherence  to  a  pre- 
scribed formula.  Many  ministers  have  no  hesita- 
tion about  omitting  it  in  part  or  as  a  whole,  if  they 
think  the  occasion  or  the  peculiar  character  of  the 
congregation  requires  it.  There  is  a  general  avoid- 
ance of  everything  that  may  suggest  formalism  in 
the  conduct  of  v^orship.  Sunday  morning  sermons 
are  generally  preached  from  the  Gospel  or  Epistle  for 
the  day,  but  not  always.  Ministers,  for  the  most  part, 
do  not  orientate  during  the  reading  of  the  prayers 
of  the  service,  and  in  most  churches  free  prayer 
is  generally  preferred  to  the  reading  of  the  general 
prayer.  The  ministerial  robe  is  coming  into  more 
general  vogue  and  is  commonly  worn  in  city  and 
town  churches,  although  in  country  churches  it  is 
generally  not  used.  Paid  choirs  are  infrequent  and 
vested  choirs  still  more  so.  The  feeling  among  the 
laity  is  that  the  sermon  is  the  essential  part  of  the 
service.  A  commendable  feature  of  Southern  con- 
gregations is  that  they  participate  in  the  communion 
as  a  whole.  It  is  not  the  custom  for  a  large  part 
of  the  congregation  to  go  out  when  the  communion 
service  begins.  The  introduction  of  special  pre- 
paratory services  before  communion  has  been  at- 
tended with  great  difficulty.  In  most  churches,  even 
in  cities,  the  order  of  confession  and  absolution  is 
combined  with  the  communion  service.  There  has 
been  great  progress  towards  churchly  architecture, 


OF  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  IN  THE  SOUTH  20I 

and  it  has  become  the  rule  in  new  or  remodeled 
churches  that  the  altar  is  placed  in  the  center  and 
elevated. 

The  Instruction  of  the  Church. — Catechisation  is 
universally  approved  and  fostered  by  pastors,  but  it 
requires  much  effort  on  their  part,  especially  in 
rural  districts,  to  prevail  on  the  laity  to  sustain  their 
endeavors  in  behalf  of  this  form  of  Christian  train- 
ing. However,  in  many  city  congregations  the  work 
of  catechisation  is  regular,  extended  and  well  or- 
ganized. By  dint  of  constant  insistence  upon  the 
importance  of  such  training  of  the  immature,  a 
great  improvement  is  being  effected,  and  the  pros- 
pect is  that  before  many  years  thorough  catechi- 
sation will  become  universal  in  the  United  Synod. 

Sunday  school  work  receives  more  favorable  and 
steady  attention.  Even  in  rural  churches  there  are 
excellent  Sunday  schools.  Everywhere  earnest  ef- 
forts are  made  to  improve  the  instruction  and  to 
grade  the  work.  Particular  attention  is  paid  to 
teacher-training  in  the  best  schools,  and  annual  sum- 
mer normal  schools  for  Sunday  school  workers, 
running  for  three  or  four  days,  have  become  an 
established  institution  in  most  Synods.  Special  at- 
tention is  given  to  training  the  churches  in  the 
spirit  of  missions  through  the  Sunday  schools. 
Many  of  the  Sunday  schools  in  the  South  are  in 
fact  and  not  only  in  theory  more  than  children's 
schools.    Adult  classes,  in  which  the  aged  are  often 


202  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

found,  are  frequent  not  only  in  t,o\vns,  but  also  in 
the  country. 

Special  Services. — When  special  services  are  men- 
tioned, Lutherans  usually  think  of  Lenten  services. 
There  has  been  a  great  advance  in  the  observance  of 
the  Lenten  season  in  recent  years,  but  this  advance 
has  not  so  generally  extended  to  the  rural  churches. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  quite  common  in  the  coun- 
try to  continue  an  old  custom  of  having  a  v^eek  of 
daily  services  in  the  summer  season,  when  it  is  much 
more  convenient  for  country  people  to  assemble  for 
worship  than  in  the  busy  spring,  during  the  season 
of  Lent.  Week  evening  prayer  meetings,  which 
were  formerly  in  vogue,  have  generally  given  way 
to  midweek  services  of  the  Bible  study  order.  In 
factj  in  most  places  it  has  become  difficult  to  main- 
tain a  vigorous  midweek  service  of  any  kind.  The 
special  festivals  of  the  Church  Year,  particularly 
Christmas,  Easter  and  Whitsunday,  are  generally 
observed. 

Polity. — The  United  Synod  shares  the  general 
character  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  giving  less 
theoretical  attention  to  forms  of  organization  and 
government  than  to  other  matters.  The  polity  that 
prevails  in  it  is  about  the  same  as  that  which  prevails 
generally  in  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country. 
The  existing  forms  of  organization  and  govern- 
ment are  due  more  to  historical  development  under 
given  conditions  than  to  construction  according  to 


OF  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  IN  THE  SOUTH  203 

abstract  theories  of  church  pohty.  The  general 
idea  v/hich  underhes  the  existing  constitutions  is 
that  expressed  in  the  old  Formula  for  Government 
and  Discipline  of  the  General  Synod  (South),  which 
is  based  on  earlier  formulas,  as  follows : 

"As  order  is  necessary  to  the  prosperity  of  every  associate 
body,  and  as  Jesus  Christ  has  left  no  specific  form  of  govern- 
ment and  discipline  for  His  Church,  it  is  the  duty  of  every 
individual  church,  or  association  of  churches,  to  adopt  such 
regulations  as  appear  to  them  most  consistent  with  the  spirit 
and  precepts  of  the  New  Testament  and  best  calculated  to 
subserve  the  interests  of  the  Church  of  Christ." 

The  unit  of  organization  is  the  congregation. 
Congregations  administer  most  of  their  affairs 
through  church  councils,  consisting  of  elders  and 
deacons.  Discipline  is  usually  exercised  through 
the  church  council.  The  right  of  appeal  to  Synod 
as  a  higher  body  is  recognized.  The  Synods  are 
constituted  of  ministers  and  congregations.  At 
meetings  every  congregation,  or  every  group  of 
congregations  served  by  one  pastor,  is  entitled  to 
representation  by  one  lay  delegate.  Synods  are  in 
the  main  only  advisory  bodies,  but  not  entirely  so. 
They  have  judicial  and  executive  powers  to  a  cer- 
tain degree.  They  exercise  discipline  over  ministers 
and  receive  appeals  from  the  judgment  of  congre- 
gations. They  have  the  power  of  ordination  to  the 
ministry  and  of  installation  of  pastors.  They  own 
and  administer  property  in  their  own  right. 


204  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

The  United  Synod,  according  to  its  constitution, 
has  only  "advisory  and  recommendatory"  powers, 
except  in  certain  matters,  defined  in  the  constitu- 
tion, in  regard  to  which  it  has  "such  powers  as  the 
Synods  composing  it  may  delegate  to  it."  Accord- 
ing to  these  provisions,  apportionments,  for  instance, 
for  general  causes  are  not  an  assessment,  but  recom- 
mendations, which  must  first  be  approved  by  a  dis- 
trict Synod  before  it  becomes  properly  operative  in 
it.  The  United  Synod  has  no  judicial  powers. 
There  is  no  right  of  appeal  to  it,  the  Synods  being 
the  final  court  of  appeal.  It  has  no  power  of  ordi- 
nation to  the  ministry.  The  missionaries  it  appoints 
must  receive  ordination  from  district  Synods.  But 
it  has  power  to  own  and  administer  institutions  and 
property  in  its  own  right.  So  it  owns  mission  prop- 
erty, a  publication  house,  an  orphan  home,  and  a 
theological  seminary. 


The  United  Norwegian  Luth- 
eran Church  of  America 

By  REV.  PROF.  F.  A.  SCHMIDT,  D.  D. 

NORWEGIAN  immigration  into  the  United 
States  commenced  in  1825.  I^  ^^^i  Kleng 
Pedersen  visited  this  country  with  a  view  of  finding 
for  himself  and  other  Quaker  friends  an  asylum 
of  perfect  religious  toleration.  On  his  return  to 
Norway  he  impressed  his  friends  and  acquaint- 
ances with  the  idea  that  it  would  be  a  good  thing 
for  them  to  establish  a  colony  on  American  soil. 
Fifty-two  persons  from  the  city  of  Stavanger  and 
some  neighboring  towns  bought  a  small  sloop  and 
set  sail  on  the  4th  of  July,  1825.  On  the  9th 
of  October  they  entered  the  harbor  of  New  York, 
and  soon  after  effected  a  settlement  near  Rochester, 
N.  Y.  A  short  time  after  a  new  colony  was  formed 
in  the  Far  West,  in  Lasalle  Co.,  Ills.  This  ''Fox 
River  settlement"  may  be  said  to  be  the  mother 

(205) 


2o6  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

colony  of  all  the  numerous  Norwegian  settlements 
throughout  the  Northwest. 

According  to  the  Icelandic  Sagas  and  other  his- 
torical documents,  there  must  have  been  a  colony 
of  the  Northmen  established  in  some  part  of  con- 
tinental America  as  early  as  1007.  In  875  Ingulf 
took  possession  of  Iceland,  which  had  been  par- 
tially settled  by  Christian  monks  and  colonists  from 
Ireland  and  Scotland.  The  Northmen  were  as  yet 
heathen,  and  were  everywhere  greatly  feared  on 
account  of  their  taste  for  plundering  and  ravages. 
For  this  reason  the  Christian  settlers  now  went 
back  to  their  former  homes  and  the  island  became 
one  large  Norwegian  colony.  In  985  Erik  the 
Red  went  to  Greenland,  where  two  districts  of 
settlements  were  formed,  of  which  the  larger,  at  a 
later  date,  comprised  190  settlements,  with  a  cathe- 
dral, II  churches,  and  3  or  4  monasteries,  while  the 
smaller  one  consisted  of  90  settlements,  with  4 
churches. 

In  999  L<eif,  the  Son  of  Erik,  embraced  Chris- 
tianity on  a  visit  to  Norway,  and  brought  the  first 
Christian  priests  to  Greenland.  The  year  follow- 
ing he  started  out  with  thirty-five  men  on  an  explor- 
ing expedition  to  the  west  and  south  of  Greenland. 
At  a  place  which  he  called  Vinland,  on  account 
of  the  wild  grapes  found  there,  he  built  huts  for  the 
winter.  For  a  number  of  years  different  efforts  at 
colonization  were  made,  and  as  late  as  1121  Bishop 
Erik  Upsi,  from  Greenland,  visited  Vinland  in  his 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  207 

official  capacity  and  reported  the  results  of  his 
visitation  to  Rome. 

It  thus  appears  likely  that  the  first  Christian 
colony  in  America  of  which  we  have  any  reason- 
ably reliable  report  was  that  of  these  Christianized 
Northmen  or  Vikings.  And  it  is  a  somewhat  sin- 
gular coincidence  that  the  much  larger  and  more 
important  immigration  of  Norwegians  during  the 
present  century  had  its  beginning  in  an  undertak- 
ing which  in  no  small  degree  resembles  the  Viking 
rovings. 

Comparing  the  history  of  the  Norwegian  Luth- 
erans in  America  with  that  of  other  nationalities, 
one  may  feel  tempted  to  trace  back  not  a  few 
of  their  churchly  characteristics  to  the  peculiar 
type  of  their  ancestral  blood.  Towering  above  all 
else  in  this  respect  is  the  indomitable  spirit  of  per- 
sonal liberty  and  independence  that  makes  itself 
felt  in  every  sphere  and  in  all  directions — evil  as 
well  as  good.  Not  unfrequently  this  ideal  of  free- 
dom, it  is  to  be  regretted,  assumes  the  character 
of  stubborn  self-will  and  everlasting  unrest  over 
against  customs,  laws  and  compacts  that  have  a 
right  to  be  respected  and  to  be  protected  against 
vandalism.  An  unpretending  index  finger  point- 
ing back  to  Viking  times  and  manners  may  thus 
serve  as  a  somewhat  excusable  form  of  introduction 
to  the  theme  proposed. 

'*The  United  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church^*  was 
finally  organized  in  1890,  and,  as  its  name  implies, 


208  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

was  an  outgrowth  of  efiforts  at  union  between  pre- 
viously independent  groups.  Four  such  took  part 
in  the  preliminary  steps,  1888-1890,  but  only  three 
of  them  consummated  the  union.  These  were  the 
so-called  Anti-Missourian  Brotherhood,  the  Confer- 
ence, and  the  Norwegian  Augustana  Synod.  The 
fourth  was  Hauge's  Synod,  which  preferred  to 
stand  aloof. 

As  all  Norwegian  I^utherans  have  come  from  the 
same  state  church,  it  may  seem  strange  that  there 
should  exist  so  much  disunion  among  them.  But 
not  all  in  the  state  church  of  Norway  were  of  one 
mind,  and  it  is  this  diflference  of  tendencies  to 
which  both  the  earlier  and  later  dissensions  chiefly 
must  be  traced.  Elling  Eielsen,  a  zealous  adherent 
of  Hans  Nilsen  Hauge,  the  great  lay-preacher 
of  Norway,  came  over  in  1839  and  carried  on  an 
extensive  missionary  operation  in  the  new  settle- 
ments. He  was  opposed  to  the  state  church,  its 
ministers,  customs  and  ceremonies.  Soon  groups 
of  individuals  gathered  around  him  wherever  he 
came,  and  these  were  formed  into  congregations. 
In  1843  ^^  was  ordained  by  Rev.  F.  A.  Hoffman 
in  Chicago.  In  1846  a  kind  of  constitution  was 
adopted,  which  served  the  local  churches  as  a  bond 
of  union,  both  in  their  separate  capacity  and  in 
their  relation  to  each  other,  until  in  1875  ^^^ 
organization,  if  such  it  may  be  termed,  formed 
itself  into  the  *' Hauge's  Synod '*  and  adopted  a 
new  constitution.     But   time   and    again   discord 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  209 

arose,  most  of  it,  as  it  appears,  on  account  of  the 
radical  standpoint  and  self-will  of  their  leader, 
ElHng  Eielsen.  Some  entered  into  connection 
with  the  Northern  Illinois  Synod  and,  in  i860,  in 
fellowship  with  the  Swedish  members,  formed  the 
Scandinavian  Augustana  Synod;  but  in  1870 started 
the  Norwegian  branch,  which,  however,  soon  again 
divided  into  two  bodies,  the  Augustana  Synod  and 
the  Conference.  Eielsen  himself,  after  the  recon- 
struction of  his  rather  informal  organization  into 
the  "Hauge's  Synod,"  left  that  body  and  formed 
one  of  his  own,  so  that  there  were  now  four  distinct 
bodies  that  traced  their  origin  to  his  pioneer  labors. 
One  more  branch  of  the  same  origin  was  also  for  a 
time  independent,  under  the  leadership  of  Rev.  P. 
A.  Rasmussen,  but  united  (virtually)  in  1862  with 
the  '*  Norwegian  Synod." 

This  body  was  formed  in  1853  ^Y  seven  ministers, 
serving  twenty-eight  congregations  that  wished  to 
adhere  more  closely  to  the  ways  of  their  mother 
state  church.  Greater  stress  was  laid  on  Lutheran 
doctrine  and  churchly  usages.  Some  of  the  first 
of  these  ministers  were,  no  doubt,  tainted  to  some 
degree  with  Grundtvig's  views,  but  the  Synod,  as 
such,  appears  to  have  opposed  that  tendency — not- 
ably the  doctrine  of  a  possibility  of  conversion  after 
death — from  its  very  beginning.  Since  1857  ^^^ 
leaders  of  the  Norwegian  Synod  came  into  more  or 
less  close  connection  with  the  German  Missouri 
Synod,  and  it  is  this  circumstance  that  has  largely 
shaped  the  trend  of  later  occurrences. 
14 


2IO  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

When,  in  1886,  the  Norwegian  Synod  resolved 
that  the  opponents  of  the  so-called  Missourian  doc- 
trine of  conversion  and  election  should  not  be 
permitted  to  have  their  own  private  seminary 
(established  at  Northfield,  Minn.),  a  majority  of 
ministers  and  congregations  belonging  to  this 
opposition  dissolved  their  connection  with  Synod 
and  formed  a  kind  of  free  union.  They  did  not 
wish  to  establish  an  organized  body  of  their  own, 
but  rather  desired  to  bring  about  a  union,  if  possi- 
ble, between  synods  already  existing.  For  a  num- 
ber of  years  free  conferences  had  been  annually 
held,  and  the  older  points  of  disagreement,  particu- 
larly those  concerning  absolution  and  justification, 
had  been  extensively  discussed,  until  an  essential 
agreement  was  reached  on  all  vital  points.  In 
1887  the  "Anti-Missourian  Brotherhood"  resolved 
to  make  an  effort  in  the  direction  of  organized 
union  between  itself  and  three  other  bodies.  With 
a  few  exceptions,  this  plan  of  union  was  every- 
where received  with  enthusiasm;  and  after  the 
necessary  actions  of  the  several  bodies,  three  of 
them  united  in  June,  1890,  on  the  basis  of  settle- 
ment and  stipulations  proposed  by  previous  joint 
meetings  at  Eau  Claire  and  Scandinavia.  Since 
then  a  number  of  the  old  Conference  have  left 
again  and  started  a  new  connection — the  *'Free 
Church" — with  Augsburg  Seminary  as  its  centre 
and  opposition  to  "the  old  church  order"  as  its 
motto. 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  211 

The  confessional  standpoint  of  the  United  Church 
is  the  same  as  that  of  the  state  church  of  Norway, 
viz.:  I.  The  three  ancient  ecumenical  symbols: 
the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Nicene  Creed,  and  the 
Athanasian  symbol ;  2.  The  (unaltered)  Augsburg 
Confession;  3.  Luther's  Smaller  Catechism.  The 
Augustana  Synod  and  some  congregations  pre- 
viously belonging  to  the  Rasmussen  faction  had 
indeed  adopted  the  entire  Book  of  Concord,  but  the 
great  majority  of  ministers  and  laymen  were  ac- 
quainted only  with  the  symbols  mentioned,  and 
wished  to  confine  to  them  the  obligation  of  ortho- 
dox teaching,  just  as  their  mother  church  in  Nor- 
way had  all  along  been  doing.  It  must  be  admitted, 
too,  that  the  adoption  of  the  entire  Book  of  Concord 
by  congregations  that  have  never  seriously  exam- 
ined them  is  hardly  a  confession  of  truth  as  it 
should  be.  It  may  be  well  enough  to  say  that  as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in 
the  later  and  larger  symbols  is  no  more  than  a 
logical  development  and  defense  of  the  confession 
of  faith  as  found  in  the  smaller  compass,  especially 
in  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  the  Magna  Charta 
of  our  Lutheran  Church  and  the  ecumenical  symbol 
within  our  ecclesiastical  borders.  We  have  no 
objection  to  make  against  them  on  that  score. 
If  questions  should  arise  as  to  the  exact  meaning 
of  some  proposition  in  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
we  would,  no  doubt,  be  inclined  to  look  for  an  ex- 
planation of  the  doubtful  point  in  the  later  symbols, 


212  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

and  we  have  no  conscious  inclination  to  under- 
standing the  older  symbols  in  a  manner  opposed  to 
the  more  extended  declarations  of  any  specific  doc- 
trine contained  in  the  Apology,  the  Smalcald  Arti- 
cles, the  Larger  Catechism,  or  even  the  Formula 
of  Concord.  But  the  volume  of  the  entire  Book 
of  Concord  is  so  large,  and  quite  a  number  of  the 
dogmatical  and  polemical  points  so  largely  require 
special  study  and  acumen,  that  a  reception  of 
them  as  general  symbols  by  lay  members  of  our 
Church  hardly  answers  to  the  genuine  principle  of 
confessing  the  faith  that  is  in  the  heart.  It 
may  be  well  enough  to  require  of  professional 
theologians  that  they  shall  have  examined  these 
further  expositions  of  our  Lutheran  system  and 
approve  of  them  as  such.  But  it  is  hardly  the 
right  thing  to  do,  either  to  require  of  laymen  that 
they  shall  actually  study  the  whole  Book  of  Con- 
cord in  order  to  make  an  intelligent  and  conscien- 
tious profession  of  their  Lutheran  faith,  or  to  require 
of  them  that  they  shall  make  a  profession  as  to  the 
soundness  of  the  doctrine  contained  in  writings 
which  they  have  never  examined  themselves,  but 
only  have,  as  it  were,  a  second-hand,  traditional 
knowledge  of  their  contents  and  correctness.  In 
the  state  churches,  where  ecclesiastical  matters 
were  officially  decided  by  consistories  or  minis- 
teriums,  it  may  not  have  been  felt  as  a  difficult 
matter  to  adopt  the  entire  volume  of  the  Book 
of  Concord.     But  in  a  free  church,  where  the  laity 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  213 

and  the  local  congregation  is  more  apt  to  form  the 
basis  of  operations,  the  matter  becomes  more  ques- 
tionable, to  say  the  least.  And  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  an  honest,  direct  and  positive  subscip- 
tion  to  a  smaller  range  of  confessional  standards  is 
found  to  be  entirely  sufficient  for  our  lay  members. 
We  need,  of  course,  a  confession  of  some  kind  as 
a  basis  of  church-union  and  harmonious  co-opera- 
tion. And  as  God  himself,  we  take  it  for  granted, 
has  had  His  governing  hand  in  the  great  events  of 
New  Testament  church  history  just  as  directly  and 
officially  as  he  ever  had  in  the  development  of  Old 
Testament  history,  we  are  in  no  doubt  of  any  kind 
that  the  Lutheran  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth 
century  was  the  work  of  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church.  We  know  full  well  that  the  adherents  of 
popery  will  not  admit  this,  but  claim  that  Luther's 
opposition  to  Rome  was  only  a  sectarian  rebellion 
against  divinely-constituted  church  authority.  But 
as  Christians  we  make  the  counter-claim,  that  all 
doctrines  and  usages  must  be  tested  by  the  unques- 
tionably divine  standard  of  the  canonical  Scrip- 
tures. Even  Romanists  themselves,  being  called 
upon  to  testify,  cannot  deny  that  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  Scriptures  are  the  supreme  God-given 
standard  and  rule  of  revealed  truth,  the  higher 
tribunal  to  which  they  must  themselves  appeal,  as 
soon  as  their  claim  concerning  the  official  authority 
or  infallibility  of  the  pope  at  Rome  is  called  in 
question  and  they  are  required  to  show  ground  for 


214  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

its  assumption.  And  as  God  in  His  own  Holy 
Word  commands  us  to  yield  absolute  obedience  of 
faith  to  his  revealed  Word  and  testimony,  not  to 
any  man,  even  though  he  claim  to  be  an  apostle  or 
an  angel  from  heaven  (Gal.  i,  8),  we  feel  perfectly 
at  liberty  to  exercise  the  natural  right  of  faith, 
which  is  by  Romanists  condemned  as  rebellious 
*' private  judgment."  The  testimony  and  confes- 
sion of  either  private  Christians  or  official  members 
of  the  Church  in  all  its  forms  has  no  dictatorial 
authority  of  its  own  or  independently  of  the  canon- 
ical consensus  of  the  prophets  and  apostles.  Hence, 
where  our  faith  and  conscience  is  necessitated  to 
make  its  choice  between  the  clear  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel  of  Christ  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  decisions 
of  popes,  councils,  bishops  or  any  official  church 
authority  whatever  on  the  other  hand,  we  will  not, 
as  Erasmus  did,  and  as  all  good  papists  must  do  as 
a  matter  of  principle,  subordinate  our  conviction 
of  the  truth  to  any  such  ecclesiastical  authority. 
We  will  rather  obey  the  admonitions  of  Scripture 
and  follow  the  good  example  of  Luther  at  Worms, 
when  he  declared  before  the  assembled  dignitaries 
of  Church  and  State:  ''Unless  it  be  that  I  am 
proved  to  be  in  error,  by  testimony  from  Holy  Writ 
or  by  clear  and  overpowering  reasons  (for  I  base 
my  faith  neither  upon  what  the  pope  nor  what  the 
councils  alone  have  said,  since  it  is  evident  and 
manifest  that  they  have  often  erred  and  contra- 
dicted themselves),  I  am  constrained,  by  the  pass- 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  215 

ages  which  I  have  adduced,  my  conscience  being 
bound  by  God's  Word,  and,  therefore,  I  cannot  and 
will  not  recant,  because  it  is  neither  safe  nor  advis- 
able to  do  anything  against  conscience.  Here  I 
stand,  I  cannot  act  otherwise,  so  help  me  God. 
Amen." 

Applying  this  evangelical  principle  of  Protest- 
antism to  our  own  case,  we  do  not  regard  our 
Lutheran  Church  as  any  traditional  authority  to 
determine  for  us  what  we  should  receive  as  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,  but  we  do  make 
the  confession  of  our  Church  our  own  personal  con- 
fession, because  we  are  convinced  that  the  system 
of  doctrine  laid  down  in  it  is  the  same  as  that  of 
the  Scriptures,  whilst  that  of  other  denominations, 
in  so  far  as  they  deviate  from  it,  at  the  same  time 
deviate  from  certain  elementary  or  fundamental 
principles  of  the  Christian  religion.  We  do  not 
say:  "We  wish  to  be  regarded  as  good  Lutherans 
and  hence  we  feel  it  as  our  duty  to  stand  up  for 
our  Lutheran  doctrine;"  but  we  rather  say:  "First 
the  truth  for  its  own  sake,  and  then  the  Church  as 
a  pure  and  faithful  witness  of  the  truth."  There  is 
a  possibility,  and  to  some  degree  a  practice,  of 
making  too  much  of  our  own  Church  or  even  our 
own  synod.  Our  divisions  have  no  doubt  one  of 
their  causes  in  that  common  weakness  of  human 
nature  which  in  so  many  ways  creates  a  partisan 
spirit  and  makes  hobbies  of  even  the  greatest  truths 
and  blessings. 


2l6  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

Rejecting  all  manner  of  dictatorial  church  author- 
ity, and  appealing  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  on  the 
basis  of  our  Christian  right  of  *' private  judgment'' 
in  the  sense  of  conscientious  obedience  of  faith,  we 
are  Protestants.  We  protest  against  all  arbitrary 
authority  and  recognize  no  other  tribunal  than  the 
word  of  God.  And  yet  we  diflfer  greatly  from 
many  claiming  to  be  Protestants  by  preeminence. 
We  agree  with  them  in  discountenancing  the  claims 
of  popery,  but  we  disagree  with  them  in  regard  to 
the  method  of  reading  the  Scriptures  and  accepting 
its  doctrines  in  certain  vital  points. 

The  Lutheran  Reformation  is  by  no  means  ex- 
clusively opposition  to  Rome.  It  is  just  as  much 
opposition  to  the  authority  of  human  reason  and 
pretended  independent  spirituality.  The  principle 
of  obedience  of  faith  to  be  observed  by  the  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus  is  not  only  one  of  negative  force 
over  against  human  devices  of  an  ecclesiastical 
character,  but  it  is  of  a  very  positive  character,  and 
demands  submission  of  our  minds  and  hearts  to  all 
the  teachings  of  Scripture. 

There  is  a  sphere  of  gospel  doctrines  that  form, 
so  to  speak,  a  border-land  between  the  strictly 
natural  and  the  exclusively  supernatural  domains. 
The  human  nature  of  our  Saviour,  for  instance, 
most  assuredly  in  many  respects  belongs  to  our 
lower  region, — our  simply  physical  and  common- 
sense  domain.  But  when  the  man  Jesus,  the  Son 
of  Mary,  walks  on  the  water,  rises  from  the  dead. 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  21/ 

appears  to  His  disciples  when  the  doors  were 
closed,  ascends  into  heaven  before  the  eyes  of  his 
witnesses,  raises  Lazarus  and  others  from  the  dead 
with  his  commanding  voice,  etc.,  we  cannot  ex- 
plain these  phenomena  on  the  basis  of  ordinary 
human  physiology.  They  belong  to  a  different 
sphere,  and  are  manifestations  of  conditions  and 
laws  of  a  superior  kind, — of  a  supernatural  char- 
acter. 

In  like  manner,  the  means  of  grace  strictly  so- 
called,  the  Word  of  God,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  are  institutions  that  partake  of  a  double 
character.  On  the  one  hand,  they  consist  of  ele- 
ments and  actions  exactly  adapted  to  our  senses 
and  mental  conditions.  But  on  the  other  hand, 
they  are  endowed  with  decidedly  supernatural  con- 
tents and  efficacy,  if  at  any  rate  the  explicit  testi- 
mony of  Holy  Writ  concerning  them  is  to  be  relied 
upon,  as  we  most  assuredly  know  that  it  is. 

Holy  baptism,  therefore,  is  not  to  be  simply 
classed  with  common  washings  with  water,  as 
though  it  could  at  most  be  no  more  than  a  figura- 
tive, emblematical,  symbolical  representation  only 
of  certain  spiritual  truths  or  effects.  It  is  an  insti- 
tution belonging  to  the  higher  domain  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  and  forms  one  of  its  "mys- 
teries." All  merely  natural  washings  have  their 
natural  efiects,  and  may  in  these  be  taken  to  sym- 
bolize eflfects  of  a  higher  sphere.  But  holy  bap- 
tism   is,   by    Scripture,   in   many  texts   and  ways 


2l8  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

spoken  of  as  having  a  spiritual,  supernatural  char- 
acter and  efficacy  in  virtue  of  its  being  one  of  the 
"mysteries  of  God"  for  the  salvation  of  sinners 
(i  Cor.  iv.  i). 

As  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  in  its  gracious 
promises,  ofifers  and  presents  to  sinners  the  fruits 
of  Christ's  redemption  for  their  acceptance  by  faith, 
so  also  holy  baptism  is  the  great  covenant  promise 
of  the  triune  God,  the  warranty  deed,  as  it  were, 
by  which  our  reconciled  Father,  on  his  part,  makes 
a  grant  to  us  of  the  blessings  procured  for  us 
through  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  of  God.  And  as 
the  Gospel,  in  all  its  promises  and  truths,  is  an  in- 
strument used  by  the  Spirit  of  God  to  convey  and 
impart  supernatural,  spiritual,  heavenly  benefits 
and  blessings,  so  also  holy  baptism  is  not  devoid 
of  the  efficacious  working  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  To 
reduce  the  efficacy,  object  and  aim  of  baptism  to  a 
merely  figurative  representation  amounts  in  fact  to 
a  denial  of  its  being  a  means  of  grace  in  any  higher 
sense  than  all  other  every-day  washings  with  water 
may  be  taken  to  be.  The  serpent  lifted  up  by 
Moses  in  the  wilderness  had  in  it  the  supernatural 
power  of  healing  by  means  of  the  pro:  ise  annexed 
to  it  and  raising  its  efficacy  to  a  higher,  a  super- 
natural level.  Thus  it  is  also  the  direct  and  posi- 
tive promise  of  grace  and  salvation  for  Christ's 
sake  that  renders  baptism  a  washing  for  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  and  a  covenant  act  of  God,  in 
which  life  and  salvation  are  freely  offisred  to  all 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  219 

and  are  communicated  to  those  who  truly  repent 
and  believingly  appropriate  the  promised  merit 
of  the  Saviour. 

The  mistake  made  by  so  many  Protestants  in 
measuring  the  "mysteries  of  God"  by  the  stand- 
ards only  of  our  lower,  merely  physical  sphere  is 
especially  apparent  in  their  doctrine  concerning 
the  Lord's  Supper.  They  view  the  bread  and  wine 
as  merely  symbols  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
because,  forsooth,  real  bread  and  wine  naturally 
cannot  claim  to  be  more  than  such  symbols.  But 
the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  places  it  clearly 
in  the  higher  sphere  of  the  "mysteries  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven."  And  being  thus  placed  in  that 
sphere,  it  is  not  even  very  rational  to  judge  of  its 
essence  and  object  merely  by  our  experimental 
common-sense  knowledge  of  bread  and  wine  in 
our  lower,  exclusively  physical  sphere. 

It  is  the  Saviour  Himself  who  alone  is  able  to  tell 
us  for  what  purpose  He  has  instituted  the  eating  of 
bread  and  the  drinking  of  wine  in  the  Holy  Sacra- 
ment. Time  and  again  He  made  ample  use  of  par- 
ables, representing  the  things  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  by  means  of  images  taken  from  our  lower 
natural  domain.  Then  He  always  says:  "The 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  likened  unto^  or  is  like  to^^'^ 
this  or  that.  He  knew  very  well  what  form  of 
language  to  use  when  He  was  presenting  spiritual 
facts  and  truths  in  a  merely  figurative  or  symbolical 
manner.    But  in  His  words  of  institution  He  did  not 


220  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

say:  Take,  eat  this  bread  which  is  like  my  body 
given  for  you ;  or,  Drink  of  this  wine  which  is  like 
my  blood  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins.  His  words 
are  direct  and  positive :  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  my 
body;  take,  drink,  this  is  my  blood."  The  acts  of 
eating  and  drinking  are  in  plain  terms  referred  by 
Him  to  His  own  body  and  blood.  And  it  is  this 
specific  sacramental  act  of  eating  His  body  and 
drinking  His  blood  which  is  to  take  place  in  re- 
membrance of  Him  as  our  dying  Redeemer,  who 
has  made  a  sacrifice  of  His  own  body  and  blood  for 
our  salvation. 

If  thoughts  of  reason  here  object :  How  can  the 
body  and  blood  of  Jesus  be  invisibly  and  insensibly 
present  in  so  many  places,  etc.?  we  simply  answer: 
The  possibilities  and  realities  of  any  mystery  cf 
God,  and  particularly  of  the  human  nature  of  the 
God-man,  are  never  to  be  measured  by  the  laws  and 
conditions  of  our  lower  physical  sphere,  but  by 
their  own  higher  laws  of  their  higher  domain,  in 
accordance  with  the  majesty  of  His  will  and 
almighty  power,  who  has  established  this  kingdom 
of  heaven  and  has  given  it  its  own  supernatural 
and  heavenly  character.  What  we  are  to  believe, 
teach  and  confess  regarding  each  of  these  mysteries 
of  God,  He  has  given  us  to  know  by  His  Holy  Word, 
and  He  requires  us  to  accept  of  this  positive  and 
clear  Word  as  the  authentic  standard  and  rule  of 
om  faith,  fully  convinced  that  ^^  what  he  has  prom- 
ised, he  is  also  able  to  perform^''^  even  though  all 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  221 

the  known  or  unknown  laws  of  the  lower  natural 
sphere  should  be  at  an  absolute  loss  to  account  for 
the  possibility  of  His  promise  being  fulfilled.  To 
define  the  essence  of  the  lyord's  Supper  is,  from  a 
truly  Christian  standpoint,  clearly  not  a  business 
of  experimental  common  sense,  taking  its  rules  of 
decision  exclusively  from  the  lower  sphere  of  phys- 
ical nature.  You  might  as  well  deny  all  miracles, 
all  articles  of  faith,  all  interventions  of  divine 
providence,  merely  because  the  constitution  of 
physical  nature  does  not  reveal  any  manner  in 
which  provision  is  made  for  such  extraordinary 
occurrences. 

It  was  on  account  of  this  radical  principle  of  un- 
belief over  against  the  mystery  of  the  Eucharist,  as 
i^vealed  in  the  words  of  its  institution,  that  Dr. 
Luther  so  strenuously  opposed  the  rationalizing 
tendency  of  Carlstadt  and  Zwingli.  And  all  later 
developments  of  that  sort  of  theology,  down  to  our 
own  day  of  liberal  theologies  and  of  materialistic 
infidelity  and  atheism,  have  by  no  means  proven 
Luther's  standpoint  to  be  wrong.  Once  open  the 
flood-gates  of  rationalistic  doubt  and  unbelief  re- 
specting  some  clear  word  of  God  as  such,  and  you 
need  not  wonder  if  a  deluge  of  infidel  rationalism 
and  naturalism  sweeps  away  ever>'  remnant  of  faith 
in  the  supernatural  character  of  anything  and 
everything  in  our  Christian  religion. 

It  is  poor  theology,   indeed,   to  say,   when  the 
mystery  of  the  Holy  Trinity  is  called  in  question: 


22  2  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

"You  must  judge  of  this  mystery  and  article  of 
faith  by  the  standard  of  the  clearly  revealed  word 
of  God,  not  by  that  of  the  gainsayings  of  corrupt 
reason,"  and  then  again,  when  the  mystery  of 
the  holy  Eucharist  is  treated  of,  to  say:  ''This 
mystery  of  God  is  to  be  defined  and  explained  in 
accordance  with  the  common-sense  ideas  that  gov- 
ern this  lower  sphere  of  our  experimental  physical 
knowledge,  not  by  the  positive  and  plain  tenor 
of  the  words  of  institution  as  any  binding  standard 
of  faith  in  regard  to  this  sacrament."  Our  Saviour 
knew  what  He  was  doing  when  He  made  His  care- 
ful choice  of  explicit  terms.  And  we  do  not  see 
how  we  could  claim  to  be  His  true  and  faithful 
disciples  if  we  should  refuse  to  accept  of  His  plain, 
straightforward  words,  merely  because  we  see  no 
natural  law  to  sustain  them. 

"Christ  was  the  Word  that  spake  it, 
He  took  the  bread  and  brake  it; 
And  as  that  Word  did  make  it, 
So  I  believe  and  take  it." 

This  position  of  yielding  absolute  obedience 
of  faith  to  the  plain  texts  of  Scripture  affects  the 
entire  sphere  of  the  means  of  grace,  and  in  fact  all 
articles  of  faith.  In  the  gospel  household  it  is  God 
who  deals  with  us  through  certain  persons  and 
means.  It  has  pleased  the  triune  God  to  be  present 
in  this  temple  of  His  grace  and  to  make  known 
His  will  in  the  doctrines  of  the  law  and  the  gospel 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  223 

He  has  Himself  made  provision  for  us  to  find  Him, 
and  it  is  for  us  to  seek  Him  in  the  manner  in 
which  He  is  willing  to  be  found.  For  this  reason 
we  also  believe,  as  the  gospel  texts  (Matt.  xvi.  19; 
John  XX.  23)  teach  us  to  do,  that  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  announced  in  the  name  of  God  is  a  valid 
declaration  of  God's  forgiving  grace.  It  is  in  every 
case  a  gracious  promise  of  God  offering  for  Christ's 
sake  to  forgive  sin,  and  revealing  God's  heart  as 
ready  to  impart  full  forgiveness  on  account  of  that 
precious  blood  which  was  shed  for  the  remission 
of  our  sins.  If  the  forgiveness  thus  promised  and 
offered  in  absolution  is  accepted  with  a  penitent 
and  believing  heart,  then  such  absolution  actually 
confers  the  comfort  and  blessing  of  forgiveness  as 
a  means  of  personal  justification,  just  as  gospel 
promises  in  general  do  confer  their  blessings  to 
those  who  receive  them  believingly.  If,  however, 
the  pastoral  absolution  should  be  spoken  to  an 
unrepentant  and  unbelieving  person,  it  still  re- 
mains an  offer  of  pardon  as  a  free  gift  and  valid 
declaration  of  God's  universal  forgiving  love  for 
Christ's  sake,  although  the  person  receiving  the 
absolution  in  such  a  case  hinders  it,  by  his  impen- 
itence, from  becoming  more  to  him  than  a  mere 
offer  or  promise  of  forgiveness  on  the  part  of  God. 
It  may  be  urged,  with  truth  and  justice,  that  the 
doctrinal  position  here  delineated  is  common  to  all 
Lutherans,  and  hence  cannot  serve  as  a  distin- 
guishing characteristic  of  any  particular  Lutheran 


224  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

body.  Our  reply  is,  that  we  heartily  desire,  as 
much  as  lieth  in  us,  to  rest  content  with  this 
ecumenical  Lutheran  position  and  to  avoid  setting 
forth  special  characteristics  regarding  doctrines  or 
usages  with  a  view  of  separating  our  United  Church 
on  the  ground  of  such  diflferences  from  other  (Nor- 
wegian) IvUtheran  bodies.  There  are,  no  doubt, 
quite  a  number  of  doctrinal  and  other  differences 
between  Lutheran  synods,  forming,  as  it  were,  a 
handy  dividing  wall  between  partisan  leaders  and 
their  followers  on  both  sides  of  the  dividing  lines. 
But  the  extremely  serious  question  is:  ''Does  our 
Father  in  heaven  approve  of  such  a  condition 
of  things?  Are  all  these  minor  details  of  differ- 
ences really  of  such  a  weighty  character  that  a 
separate  organization  for  purposes  of  confession 
and  harmonious  church  work  must  be  taken  to  be 
at  least  warranted,  if  not  actually  necessitated?'^ 
Our  Lutheran  Church  in  America  presents  a  rather 
quilt-like  appearance,  not  only  on  the  ground  of 
different  languages  and  nationalities,  nor  merely 
by  reason  of  different  historic  development,  but 
also  in  large  degree  on  account  of  certain  morbid 
predilections  regarding  sundry  subordinate  ques- 
tions of  doctrine  or  of  polity.  Perhaps  it  is  not  out 
of  the  way,  too,  to  mention  a  certain  traditional 
partisan  spirit  as  making  itself  felt  here  and  there, 
in  a  deplorable  degree,  by  making  hobbies  of  trivial 
matters. 

Why  should  not  Lutheran  Christians  be  able  to 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  2  25 

walk  together  in  peace  and  harmony,  instead  of 
being  split  up  in  endless  divisions?  We  of  the 
United  Church  have  had  an  experience  of  our  own 
in  this  matter  and  have  drawn  a  number  of  prac- 
tical conclusions  from  such  experience.  Laying 
stress  continually  on  the  points  of  our  previous 
differences,  and  trying  to  make  them  appear  as 
large  and  as  weighty  as  possible,  did  not  bring  us 
closer  together.  But  taking  the  matter  coolly  and 
trying  to  solve  the  disputed  questions  on  the  basis 
of  our  common  doctrinal  grounds,  this  is  what  has 
helped  us  immensely  to  see  sundr>'  things  in  a 
clearer  light  and  to  come  closer  together. 

If  our  Church  is  to  remain  true  to  its  calling, 
and  if  it  is  to  occupy  its  proper  position  in  this 
new  world,  it  must  learn  better  to  make  a  proper 
distinction  between  those  matters  that  necessitate, 
or  at  least  warrant,  division  into  separate  organized 
bodies,  and  again  such  matters  as  do  not  justify 
such  separate  organizations,  either  of  congregations 
or  of  synods.  This  is  a  very,  ver>'  weak  point  in 
our  present  ecclesiastical  situation.  It  will  not 
answer  the  purpose  here  to  say  that  if  any  teaching 
of  Scripture  forms  a  point  of  difference  betw^een 
congregations  or  synods,  then  their  separate  exist- 
ence and  their  practical  opposition  to  each  other  is 
thereby  fully  justified.  A  distinction  must  un- 
questionably be  made  between  fundamental  doc- 
trines— all  those  "articles  of  faith"  belonging  to 
the  essence  of  Gospel  teaching — and  all  such  non- 
15 


226  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

fundamental  questions,  by  which  tlie  unity  of  faith 
is  not  vitally  affected.  In  regard  to  the  latter, 
much  weakness  of  judgment  must  be  tolerated  with 
cheerful  patience,  without,  however,  yielding  a 
hair's  breadth  respecting  the  truth  itself  The 
authority  of  Scripture  as  our  absolute  rule  of  faith 
must  remain  absolutely  unchallenged.  Surely,  if 
all  our  Lutheran  Church  bodies  were  to  form  an 
agreement  among  themselves  that  they  will  assist 
each  other  in  various  ways  to  understand  more 
clearly,  and  to  appreciate  more  fully,  the  glory  of 
our  Church  in  regard  to  its  general  distinctive 
characteristics  of  gospel  purity,  and  thus  to  indoc- 
trinate all  our  people  more  thoroughly  as  to  the 
primary  great  principles  of  our  Ltitheran  faith  in 
its  various  bearings,  then,  we  trust,  but  not  till 
then,  will  the  way  to  greater  harmony  and  closer 
union  have  been  paved  in  a  manner  perfectly  pleas- 
ing to  God  and  sure  to  enjoy  his  paternal  blessing. 
There  would,  no  doubt,  remain  differences  of  vari- 
ous kinds  and  degrees,  but  hardly  any  that  would 
necessitate  or  warrant  a  continuation  of  our  varie- 
gated organizations,  with  all  their  small  rivalries 
and  other  blemishes.  "  Where  there  is  a  will,  there 
is  a  way,"  is  a  saying  that  most  assuredly  holds 
good  in  all  cases  where  "a  will "  is  in  earnest  con- 
formity with  God's  will.  And  our  Lutheran  theo- 
logians have  long  since  laid  down  the  sound  prin- 
ciple that  the  unity  of  the  Church  does  not  at  all 
imply  an  absolute  unity  in  regard  to  all  questions 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  227 

of  doctrine,  or  morals,  or  church  history,  or  pastoral 
practice  that  can  be  ultimately  decided  by  appeal- 
ing to  the  Scriptures.  A  general  study  of  this 
special  chapter  of  our  lyUtheran  theology  would, 
no  doubt,  be  of  great  help  to  arrive  at  a  more  clear 
understanding  of  the  matter,  and  would  in  many 
(well-meant  but  mistaken)  cases  lead  to  an  adoption 
of  sounder  principles. 

What  has  been  previously  said  contains  a  suffi- 
cient outline  of  our  characteristics  as  a  United 
Church.  Differences  of  various  kinds  we  desire  to 
reduce,  if  possible,  to  a  God-pleasing  minimum,  so 
far  as  their  use  as  a  basis  for  separate  organization 
is  concerned.  We  desire  in  this  respect  to  follow 
the  example  of  the  ancient  Church,  and  even  our 
Lutheran  Church  in  the  days  of  its  historic  great- 
ness. Both  of  them  have  tolerated  differences  of  a 
non-fundamental  character.  Absolute  unity,  it  is 
true,  is  desirable  enough  as  an  ideal,  but  hardly 
ever  attainable  in  this  world ;  and  the  question 
really  may  be,  whether  it  does  not  belong  to  the 
normal  calling  of  the  Church  here  below  to  practice 
patience  and  forbearance  in  different  ways,  if  but 
all  the  essential  points  of  absolutely  necessary  unity 
remain  intact? 

"  Hauge's  Synod"  and  its  smaller  offshoot — call- 
ing itself  officially  "The  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church^' — wuuld  probably  be  received  into  our 
body  without  asking  many  questions  as  to  doctrine. 
There  is  no  point  that  has  been  to  any  degree  con- 
troverted between  us  and  them. 


228  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

The  "  Free  Church,"  however,  is  formed  on  an 
entirely  new  basis.  They  regard  the  close  connec- 
tion between  college  and  seminary  education  in  the 
same  institution  as  a  vital  matter  of  welfare  for  the 
Church.  They  furthermore  reject  the  principle 
of  representation  as  a  basis  of  full  membership  at 
their  annual  meetings,  granting  the  right  to  vote 
to  all  individual  members  of  any  Lutheran  con- 
nection, provided  they  approve  of  their  *' rules." 
They  claim,  also,  that  congregations  thus  enjoy 
greater  liberty  and  are  better  cared  for  in  regard  to 
their  spiritual  wants. 

Over  against  "The  Synod  for  the  Norwegian 
Lutheran  Church"  our  relations  are  of  a  somewhat 
strained  kind.  Of  late  there  has  been  more  or  less 
endeavor  to  come  to  a  better  understanding,  but 
thus  far  without  any  visible  success.  Our  United 
Church,  during  its  eleven  years  of  existence,  has 
not  taken  any  official  position  on  controverted 
points,  partly  because  the  growing  expansion  has 
taken  up  almost  all  of  our  time  for  so-called  busi- 
ness matters,  partly  because  the  troubles  with  the 
"Free  Church"  element  have  encroached  largely 
on  our  transactions,  partly  also  because  there  has 
been  engendered  a  certain  aversion  in  our  midst  to 
all  discussions  of  a  strictly  dogmatical  or  polemical 
character,  and  herein,  no  doubt,  lies  a  by  no  means 
insignificant  danger  of  our  position. 

But  although  the  United  Church  as  such  has  not 
formally  declared  itself  on  the  doctrine  concerning 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  229 

predestination  and  conversion,  it  has,  however, 
been  set  forth  in  the  writings  of  leaders  of  the 
Norwegian  Synod.  The  main  point  in  question  is 
not  of  an  unessential  or  non-fundamental  character, 
but  seriously  afifects  the  entire  order  of  salvation  in 
points  of  vital  importance. 

As  we  understand  it,  the  radical  difference  is  to 
be  sought  in  the  question.  Does  man,  when  subject 
to  the  gospel  call,  retain  an  option,  an  alternative 
between  two  courses  of  action,  and  thus  a  choice 
of  free  accountability  before  God  as  his  judge?  or 
does  the  grace  of  God  save  all  that  are  saved  in  an 
absolute  manner,  not  only  excluding  all  merit  or 
worthiness  on  their  part,  but  also  all  option  or 
choice  between  different  courses  of  conduct,  as  a 
necessary  basis  of  free  accountability? 

So  far  as  any  meritorious  virtue  of  any  conduct 
or  exercise  of  freedom  on  the  part  of  man  is  con- 
cerned, we  teach  that  both  the  gracious  will  of  God 
and  all  His  gracious  operations  are  absolute  in  the 
full  sense  of  that  term,  excluding  every  shade  or 
degree  of  merit  on  the  part  of  a  sinner.  But  we 
regard  it  as  a  very  serious  mistake  to  transfer  this 
idea  or  principle  of  absoluteness  to  the  sphere 
of  saving  efficacy,  or  to  the  relation  between  the 
grace  of  God  as  an  efficient  cause  of  salvation  and 
its  intended  effects  or  results. 

If  it  be  said,  with  a  view  of  excluding  Syner- 
gism, that  all  converting  and  saving  efficacy  is 
exclusively  on   the   side  of  God  and   His   grace, 


230  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

and  none  whatever  on  the  side  of  fallen  man,  we 
answer:  Most  assuredly  this  is  a  plain  gospel 
truth ;  but  when  the  saving  means  of  grace,  and 
the  saving  power  of  the  Spirit  exercised  through 
those  means,  are  present  and  operating  by  the  will 
of  God,  and  are  thus  paving  the  way  for  a  sinner's 
conversion  and  salvation,  then,  nevertheless,  grace 
as  a  saving  cause  permits  every  man  to  retain  an 
option  between  obeying  the  call  and  yielding  to 
the  saving  influences  of  God's  Spirit  on  the  one 
hand,  and  between  refusing  to  do  so  on  the  other 
hand.  Every  called  sinner — ordinarily,  at  least — 
retains  his  free  accountability  in  this  respect.  All 
the  merit  is  Christ's  alone,  all  the  efficacy  is  the 
Spirit's  alone,  but  the  divinely  appointed  order 
of  salvation  in  the  case  of  no  man  annuls  his  free 
accountability  or  his  option  between  two  alterna- 
tives, two  different  possible  courses  of  action  under 
the  efficacious  gospel  call.  To  say,  however,  that 
man  has  no  alternative  under  the  gracious  and 
efficacious  gospel  call,  no  freedom  of  choice,  no 
option,  no  free  accountability,  is  in  fact  saying  that 
any  really  saving  grace  must  be  absolutely  effica- 
cious, leaving  no  possibility  whatever  to  the  sinner 
of  taking  a  contrary  course  of  action  to  that  which 
the  divine  grace  enables  and  urges  him  to  take. 
But  this  view  of  saving  grace  as  being  in  and 
of  itself  absolutely  decisive  and  effective  is  plainly 
the  antiquated  Calvinistic  principle  concerning  the 
efficiency  of  grace,  the  so-called  ''irresistible  grace,'* 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  23  I 

vvhich  tolerates  no  choice  or  alternative  on  the 
part  of  man  to  take  an  opposite  course  from  the 
one  sought  to  be  brought  about  by  the  saving  love 
of  God. 

Predestination,  viewed  thus  as  a  decree  of  God's 
almighty  will-power  fixing  the  fate  of  a  chosen 
number  of  individual  sinners  for  their  infallibly 
guaranteed  conversion  and  salvation  without  any 
possibility  of  their  frustrating  His  designs,  is  most 
certainly  not  the  foundation  of  faith  revealed  in 
the  gospel  of  Christ.  It  is  a  foundation  aside  from 
that  revealed  gospel,  a  special  foundation  claimed 
for  elect  persons  only — this  person,  that  person, 
nobody  knows  why,  since  all  are  equally  lost  in 
Adam  and  equally  redeemed  in  Christ.  And  the 
oppositional  character  is  manifested  in  various 
ways : 

1.  The  gospel  of  Christ  knows  only  of  one  and 
the  same  gracious  will  of  God  to  save  all  sinners 
by  certain  appointed  means  and  the  saving  power 
exercised  through  them.  But  the  gospel  of  the 
absolutely  efficacious  will  and  saving  power  clearly 
sets  up  a  double  order  of  salvation,  the  one  general 
and  conditional,  the  other  special  and  absolute. 
You  may,  of  course,  call  the  general  will  and  the 
special  will  one  and  the  same  will,  but  calling  it  so 
will  never  make  it  so;  the  difference  is  too  great 
and  too  plain,  one  of  them  only  being  really  saving 
and  always  absolutely  saving. 

2.  According  to  the  gospel  of  Christ,  conversion 


232  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

and  faith  are  indeed  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
but  in  such  a  manner  that  the  free  accountability 
of  man  is  not  neutralized  or  abolished.  The  called 
sinner,  when  enabled  to  yield  to  the  Spirit  through 
the  influences  of  preparing  grace,  is  still  free  to  do 
one  of  two  things,  either  to  thus  yield  or  to  resist. 
In  this  respect  he  has  a  free  option  between  two 
alternatives.  But  the  contrary  doctrine  of  an  ab- 
solutely efficacious  gospel  call  claims  that  the  result 
is  irrevocably  fixed  by  the  almighty  will-power 
of  God,  which  leaves  the  elect  person  no  degree 
of  choice  or  option,  no  possibility  of  taking  an 
opposite  course,  no  free  accountability  as  a  moral- 
agent  under  God  as  our  universal  judge.  (Compare 
Esa.  V.  4;  Matt.  xii.  41,  42.) 

3.  In  the  gospel  of  Christ  faith  is  the  central, 
pivotal  point  where  the  fate  of  sinners  is  deter- 
mined one  way  or  the  other;  for  he  that  believes, 
is  saved ;  he  that  remains  in  unbelief,  remains 
under  God's  wrath.  But  the  predestinarian  foun- 
dation of  faith  claims  that  faith  in  the  Son  of  God 
actually  settles  nothing  at  all,  it  being  only  a  sub- 
ordinate means  of  executing  that  mysterious  de- 
cree of  God  which,  among  sinners  lost  alike  and 
redeemed  alike,  is  pleased  to  grant  absolutely 
guaranteed  salvation  to  this  person,  to  that  person, 
but  to  none  on  account  of  their  having  received  and 
appropriated  the  merit  of  the  universal  Saviour. 
In  the  gospel  of  Christ  the  infallibly  saving  decree 
of  God  is  dependent  on  the  fore-knowledge  of  faith 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  233 

as  a  free  act  of  man  under  the  free  grace  of  God — a 
free  act,  because  exercised  while  retaining  freedom 
of  action  in  an  opposite  direction  and  not  being 
limited  to  a  fixed  line  of  action.  In  the  contrary 
doctrine  faith  is  represented  as  simply  an  infallible 
result  of  God's  almighty  will-power,  an  absolute 
eflfect  of  an  absolute  cause,  with  no  alternative 
or  option  left  to  man  as  a  moral  agent  under 
his  Judge.  In  judging  the  elect  God  thus  can 
only  judge  Himself  as  the  only  free  agent  in  the 
matter. 

4.  The  gospel  of  Christ  says  to  believers:  You 
are  now  in  a  state  of  grace  and  salvation  ;  you  are 
also,  by  the  grace  of  God,  fully  enabled  to  retain 
your  position  and  to  press  forward  towards  the 
goal  of  your  faith,  the  salvation  of  your  souls  in 
heaven;  but  you  must  make  use  of  the  proper 
means  and  continually  renew  your  purpose  of  faith 
and  obedience,  for  you  may  actually  fall  from 
grace,  lose  your  present  good  estate  and  thus  be 
deprived  of  your  crown.  The  opposite  doctrine 
says:  God  has  revealed  to  the  specially  elected 
persons  his  infallible  decree  concerning  their  final 
salvation,  so  that  they  can  and  should  be  sure 
beforehand  that  no  falling  away  from  faith  or  grace 
ever  can  ultimately  injure  them,  for  in  virtue 
of  God's  infallibly  guaranteed  salvation  they  must 
necessarily  be  finally  saved. 


234  DfSTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

SUPPLEMENT    TO    DR.    SCHMIDT'S 
ARTICLE. 

BY  REV.  JENS  C.  ROSELAND, 
General  Secretary  of  the  United  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church. 

From  its  very  inception  one  of  the  emphasized 
and  reiterated  purposes  of  the  United  Church  is  the 
reuniting  of  the  half  dozen  Norwegian  Lutheran 
Synods,  which,  for  more  or  less  real  doctrinal  dif- 
ferences, have  drifted  apart,  and  have  established 
independent  synodical  activities,  such  as  schools, 
missions,  etc.  It  might  seem  a  little  strange  that  a 
people  of  so  decided  a  religious  bias,  and  of  such 
uniform  religious  training,  should  so  easily  drift 
apart  where  political  conditions  accorded  them  a 
larger  freedom  of  conscience.  And  yet,  underneath 
the  apparent  inconsistency  there  is  a  logic  which 
strongl}^  suggests  the  inevitableness  of  a  chapter  of 
divisions  to  cover  the  first  generation  or  two  in  Nor- 
wegian American  Church  History. 

The  Norwegian  churchman,  who  came  to  this 
country,  found  himself  confronted  by  conditions 
which  left  him  absolutely  free  to  follow  strictly  in 
the  wake  of  the  old  Norwegian  State  Church,  or  to 
try  a  less  ritualistic  and  more  pietistic  form  of  Luth- 
eranism.  It  was  but  natural  that  the  tendencies  of 
Orthodoxism  and  Haugean  Pietism,  which  had  al- 
ready divided  the  Norwegian  immigrants  before 
they  left  their  fatherland,  should  take  the  form  of 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  235 

independent  outward  organizations,  under  condi- 
tions which  invited  such  a  course.  The  chapter  of 
Norwegian  Lutlieran  divisions  in  this  country  is, 
therefore,  nothing  strange  to  one  at  all  familiar 
with  Norwegian  history. 

Nor  is  it  any  more  strange  that  after  a  generation 
of  more  or  less  successful  dabbling  in  independent 
free-church  experiments,  this  uniformly  religiously 
trained  people  should  manifest  a  deep  disappoint- 
ment with  the  outward  results  of  this  ultra-exclu- 
sivism,  and  earnestly  begin  to  think  of  reuniting 
what  so  naturally  belonged  together. 

It  is  this  logical  Union  Movement  among  Nor- 
wegian Lutherans  in  America  we  would  trace  in 
these  lines  in  the  form  of  a  supplement  to  Dr. 
Schmidt's  article,  beginning  with  the  year  1900. 

During  the  synodical  year  1899  to  1900  the  Union 
Movement  gained  no  appreciable  headway,  inas- 
much as  only  the  United  Church  had  appointed  a 
Union  Committee.  At  the  June  conventions  in 
1900,  the  Eastern  and  Iowa  Districts  of  the  Nor- 
wegian Synod  adopted  resolutions  recommending 
that,  to  begin  with,  the  Presidents  and  Theological 
Faculties  of  the  Norwegian  Synod,  the  Hauge's 
Synod  and  the  United  Church  meet  together  and 
thoroughly  discuss  their  doctrinal  differences.  The 
United  Church  convention  of  the  same  year  elected 
a  committee  to  arrange  for  a  general  "Free  Confer- 
ence"   of    all    the    Norwegian    Lutheran    Church 


236  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

bodies,  and  to  this  committee  it  also  referred  the 
recommendation  of  the  Norwegian  Synod.  March 
28-30  the  following  year  a  Colloquium  was  held,  as 
recommended  by  the  Norwegian  Synod,  and  it  was 
decided  to  hold  a  similar  Colloquium  the  next  year, 
but  owing  to  the  prolonged  sickness  and  death  of 
the  President  of  the  United  Church,  the  Rev.  G. 
Hoime,  which  occurred  June  9th,  1902,  no  Col- 
loquium was  held  that  year.  In  1903  the  "Church 
Council  (Kirkeraadet)  of  the  Norwegian  Synod 
requested  the  President  and  Faculty  of  the  United 
Church  to  elect  as  a  member  of  the  Colloquium 
some  one  in  the  place  of  Dr.  F.  A.  Schmidt,  as  cer- 
tain members  of  the  Synod  Faculty  had  declined, 
for  conscience'  sake,  to  take  part  in  the  Colloquium 
with  him  as  a  member.  This  request  was  not 
granted,  and  that  same  year  a  most  scathing  attack 
upon  Dr.  Schmidt  was  published  by  the  Synodical 
Church  Council  and  freely  circulated  among  the 
congregations  of  the  Synod.  With  regard  to  this 
action,  the  United  Church  at  its  convention  in  1903 
passed  the  following  resolution : 

•'The  convention  declares  that  the  Colloquium  commenced 
between  the  Faculties  and  Presidents  of  the  Norwegian  Synod 
and  the  United  Church,  with  a  view  to  union,  was  stopped  by 
the  Church  Council  of  the  Norwegian  Synod.  Should  the 
Norwegian  Synod  approve  of  the  Council's  action  and  not 
be  willing  to  continue  the  Colloquium,  the  convention  recom- 
mends that  the  accomplishment  of  a  God-pleasing  union 
among  Norwegian  Lutheran  Christians  in  America  be  sought 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  237 

through  general  Tree  Conferences.'  Should  the  Norwegian 
Synod  at  its  present  convention  fail  to  take  any  steps  for  the 
furtherance  of  the  union,  the  United  Church  instructs  its 
President  to  arrange,  if  possible,  for  the  holding  of  general 
*Free  Conferences'  among  the  Norwegian  Lutheran  Christians 
in  America." 

In  accordance  with  this  resolution  the  President 
of  the  United  Church  conferred  with  the  Presidents 
of  the  Norwegian  Synod  and  the  Hauge's  Synod 
about  the  holding  of  such  *'Free  Conferences,"  but 
without  any  result. 

At  the  Albert  Lea  convention,  in  1904,  the  United 
Church  passed  the  following  resolution : 

"The  convention  deplores  that  the  Norwegian  Synod  and 
the  Hauge's  Synod  will  not  confer  with  us  concerning  a 
Christian  union  of  the  Norwegian  Lutheran  bodies.  Not- 
withstanding all  refusals,  the  United  Church  will,  neverthe- 
less, not  withdraw  the  extended  hand,  and  it  hopes  and  prays 
that  God  graciously  will  lead  the  hearts  so  that  the  negotia- 
tions, now  apparently  m.ade  impossible,  may  be  renewed  in  a 
not  too  distant  future."     (Official  Minutes,  1904,  p.  198.) 

At  the  United  Church  convention,  in  1905,  a 
similar  resolution  was  passed,  deploring  the  slow 
progress  of  the  Union  Movement,  and  requesting 
the  President  and  Theological  Faculty  to  renew 
their  efforts  during  the  following  year.  In  the 
meantime  this  convention  received  a  telegram  from 
the  simultaneous  Hauge's  Synod  convention  ofifici- 
ally  announcing  that  it  had  appointed  a  Union  Com- 
mittee ''to  confer  with  other  Norweg^ian  Lutheran 


238  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

Synods  about  union."  At  the  Norwegian  Synod 
convention  of  the  same  year  a  committee  was  ap- 
pointed **to  confer  with  the  committee  appointed  by 
the  flange's  Synod  about  union."  Thus  it  happened 
that  a  joint  meeting  of  all  these  three  committees 
was  held  at  Minneapolis,  March  27-30,  1906,  at 
which  a  unanimous  agreement  was  reached  as  to  the 
doctrines  of  Absolution.  The  committees  consisted 
of  the  Theological  Faculties,  the  Presidents,  and  an 
additional  member  elected  by  each  of  the  three  Syn- 
ods. A  second  meeting  was  held  by  this  committee 
at  Minneapolis,  October  16-19,  1906,  where  the 
subject  of  Lay  Activity  in  the  Church  was  dis- 
cussed and  agreed  upon.  The  doctrine  concerning 
the  Call  and  Conversion  was  discussed  at  two 
meetings  in  1907,  and  a  quite  lengthy  statement,  set- 
ting forth  in  detail  tlie  doctrinal  position,  was  unani- 
mously adopted.     (See  Official  Minutes  U.  C,  1908, 

PP-  53-63.)  ^ 

The  doctrine  concerning  Election  was  discussed 
by  the  Union  Committees  at  five  different  meetings, 
as  follows:  November  10-13,  1908;  March  30  to 
April  2,  1909;  November  2-5,  1909;  March  29, 
igio,  and  December  13,  1910.  (See  official  Min- 
utes U.  C,  1910,  pp.  73-86.)  A  sub-committee, 
consisting  of  one  member  from  each  committee,  was 
appointed  to  formulate  and  agree  upon  a  statement 
of  the  doctrine  of  Election  to  be  submitted  for  dis- 
cussion by  all  the  committees  in  joint  session.     The 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  239 

sub-committee,  however,  failed  to  agree,  and  a 
series  of  theses,  by  Dr.  Stub,  the  President  of  the 
Norwegian  Synod,  was  made  the  basis  of  discus- 
sion. When  it  became  evident  that  no  agreement 
could  be  reached  on  this  basis,  a  new  sub-commit- 
tee was  appointed  to  again  try  to  formulate  some 
joint  report  for  discussion,  but  once  more  with  the 
result  that  the  sub-committee  could  not  agree.  The 
committee  of  the  Norwegian  Synod,  having  previ- 
ously declared  that  they  would  not  take  part  in  the 
Colloquium  any  longer  unless  the  sub-committee 
could  come  to  some  agreement,  the  project  seemed 
blocked.  Yet  the  President  of  the  Norwegian 
Synod,  Dr.  Stub,  called  another  joint  meeting  of  all 
the  committees  March  29,  19 10,  and  at  this  meeting 
a  motion  was  made  to  adopt  for  discussion  a  series 
of  theses  presented  by  Rev.  Eastvold,  of  the  Hauges 
Synod,  but  the  Norwegian  Synod  committee  finally 
concluded  not  to  take  any  further  part  in  the  Col- 
loquium until  after  the  matter  had  been  laid  before 
the  following  annual  convention  of  the  Synod. 

Again  a  meeting  was  called  of  the  three  Union 
Committees  at  the  United  Church  Seminary,  De- 
cember 13-14,  19 10,  at  which  a  declaration  was 
read  by  Dr.  Stub,  and  signed  by  the  Synod  Faculty, 
severely  censuring  certain  utterances  in  Dr.  Dahl's, 
the  United  Church  President's,  last  annual  report  to 
the  United  Church,  in  which  he  had  declared  that  the 
theses  of  Dr.  Stub's  "contained  certain  doctrines  re- 


240  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

garding  Election,  which  the  (United  Church)  com- 
mittee could  not  with  a  good  conscience  subscribe 
to  as  Biblical  and  Lutheran  doctrine."  As  a  neces- 
sary condition  for  continuing  these  discussions  with 
the  United  Church  committee,  the  declaration  there- 
fore demanded  that  the  un-Biblical  and  un-Lutheran 
doctrine  in  these  Theses  should  be  pointed  out,  and 
that  they  should  be  made  the  basis  for  discussion. 
Accordingly,  at  the  forenoon  session,  December  14, 
Dr.  J.  N.  Kildahl  presented  a  critical  review  of  Dr. 
Stub's  Theses,  in  which  he  called  attention  to  the 
points  to  which  the  United  Church  committee  could 
not  subscribe.  But  all  the  members  of  the  Synod 
committee  had  already  left  the  meeting,  and  further 
discussion  was  again  blocked,  so  far  as  the  Synod 
committee  was  concerned. 

The  two  remaining  committees  from  the  United 
Church  and  the  Hauge's  Synod,  however,  continued 
the  discussion  mainly  on  the  basis  of  Rev.  East- 
void's  Theses,  the  result  of  which  was  the  unani- 
m.ous  adoption  of  the  following  resolution: 

"The  Union  Committees  of  the  United  Church  and  the 
Hauge's  Synod  hereby  declare,  that  in  their  judgment,  there 
is  no  doctrinal  difference  between  these  two  bodies,  for  which 
they  should  be  divided,  and  that  they,  therefore,  can  and  ought 
fully  to  recognize  each  other  as  brethren  in  the  faith  and 
orthodox  Lutherans."  The  committees  passed  a  resolution 
deploring  that  the  Norwegian  Synod  Committee  had  found 
it  right  to  withdraw  from  the  union  movement.  (See  Official 
Minutes  U.  C,  191 1,  pp.  91-96.) 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  24I 

At  this  time  an  effort  was  also  made  by  the  United 
Church  to  commence  negotiations  with  a  view  to  or- 
ganic union  with  the  so-called  "Norwegian  Luth- 
eran Free  Church,"  but  in  a  correspondence  from 
the  Free  Church  committee,  dated  September  23, 
19 10,  the  proposition  was  politely  evaded.  (See 
Official  Minutes  of  Free  Church,  1911,  p.  108.) 

So  far  the  union  eft'ort  with  the  Norwegian 
Synod  had  established  agreement  with  regard  to  the 
doctrine  of  Absolution,  The  Call,  Conversion 
and  Lay  Activity,  but  it  had  stranded  on  the  doc- 
trine of  Election. 

Partly  as  the  result  of  an  informal  Lay  Delegate 
Meeting,  held  during  the  United  Church  convention 
at  St.  Paul,  Minn.,  in  191 1,  both  the  United  Church 
and  the  Norwegian  Synod  discharged  their  old 
Union  Committees  and  elected  new  ones,  several  of 
the  members  of  which  were  known  to  be  strong 
union  men.  These  new  committees  held  a  joint 
meeting  in  Madison,  Wis.,  in  February,  19 12,  at 
which  certain  doctrinal  propositions  regarding  Elec- 
tion, styled  "Opgjor"  and  *Torslag,"  were  unani- 
mously agreed  upon.  (See  Official  Minutes  U. 
C,  1912,  pp.  254-256.)  These  propositions  were 
printed  in  pamphlet  form  and  circulated  among 
all  the  congregations  of  both  Synods.  At  the  fol- 
lowing June  conventions  these  propositions  were 
almost  unanimously  adopted  by  both  the  Norwegian 
Synod  and  the  United  Church,  and  new  committees 
x6 


242  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

were  elected  to  confer  as  to  what  ought  to  be  the 
next  step  in  order  to  secure  an  actual  union.  These 
committees,  together  with  a  committee  from  the 
Range's  Synod,  met  at  Minneapolis,  September  4-5, 
191 2.  But  little,  however,  was  accomplished  by  this 
meeting,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  Norwegian 
Synod  committee  did  not  regard  themselves  author- 
ized to  discuss  the  question  of  actual  union  before 
their  Synod  had  passed  upon  the  subject  and  given 
to  the  committee  its  instructions.  Resolutions  were 
adopted  recommending  joint  Lay  and  Pastoral  Con- 
ferences, Mission  meetings  and  occasional  exchange 
of  pulpits,  and  that  the  congregations  be  requested 
not  to  precipitate  the  movement  by  hasty  local 
unions,  but  that  they  for  the  present  remain  in  for- 
mal connection  with  the  Synod  to  which  they  at 
present  belong.  The  Presidents  of  the  three  Synods 
Avere  authorized  to  call  a  new  meeting  of  the  com.- 
mittees  when  necessary. 

The  Union  Committees  of  the  United  Church  and 
the  Lutheran  Free  Church  held  a  meeting  in  St. 
Paul,  Minn.,  February  11-12,  1912,  and  one  in  Min- 
neapolis, Minn.,  February  18-20,  191 3,  but  no  appre- 
ciable progress  was  made  towards  union,  inasmuch 
as  the  Free  Church  Committee  declared  that  in 
order  to  secure  a  more  cordial  relation  and  co-ope- 
ration between  these  two  bodies,  the  inevitable  con- 
dition would  be  an  acknowledgment  on  the  part  of 
the  United  Church  that  it  had  acted  in  an  unjust 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  243 

and  unchristian  manner  in  half  a  dozen  stipulated 
points.  This  the  United  Church  committee  repu- 
diated as  an  unjust  demand,  and  refused  to  make 
such  a  recommendation.     (See  Official  Minutes  U. 

c,  1913,  pp.  90-91) 

In  June.  19 13,  an  extra  session  of  the  Norwegian 
Synod  had  been  called  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  action  on  the  question  of  Union.  The  dis- 
cussion centered  on  the  ''Opgjor,"  and  objection 
was  made  to  the  two  parentheses  in  the  first  para- 
graph of  this  document,  namely,  ''The  so-called  first 
formula  of  doctrine  (referring  to  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  Art.  XI),-  and  ''The  so-called  second 
formula  of  doctrine,"  (referring  to  question  548  in 
"IVuth  Unto  Piety,"  by  Dr.  Pontoppidan).  Dr. 
Stub  called  the  attention  of  the  United  Church  to 
this  objection  in  a  personal  appeal  before  its  annual 
convention,  Avhich  was  held  simultaneously  at  St. 
Paul.  He  also  called  attention  to  the  United  Church 
committee's  criticism  of  his  Theses  on  Election,  as 
one  of  the  obstacles  in  the  way  of  union,  which  it 
was  in  the  power  of  the  United  Church  to  remove. 

In  answer  to  this  appeal  the  United  Church  imme- 
diately passed  a  resolution  to  strike  out  theobjection- 
able  parentheses,  provided  the  same  action  should 
be  taken  by  the  other  two  conferring  bodies.  It 
was  also  off'.cially  declared  by  the  United  Church 
convention  that  Dr.  Stub's  Tlieses  had  never  been 
submitted  for  discussion  at  any  United  Church  con- 


244  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

vention,  and  that  consequently  the  United  Church 
had  never  expressed  any  opinion  or  criticism  with 
regard  to  them. 

These  resolutions  were  formally  transmitted  to 
the  Norwegian  Synod  convention  by  duly  elected 
fraternal  delegates.  (See  Official  Minutes  U.  C, 
1913,  p.  241.) 

This  concession  by  the  United  Church  was  fol- 
lowed in  the  Norwegian  Synod  convention  by  a 
Majority  Report,  which  enlarged  the  power  of  the 
Union  Committee  so  that  it  might  take  up  for  dis- 
cussion with  the  other  two  Union  Committees  the 
question  of  a  possible  future  consolidation  into  one 
Synod,  or  a  federation  of  Synods,  and  a  Minority 
Report,  which  opposed  this.  After  a  long  and  warm 
debate  the  Majority  Report  prevailed,  the  vote 
standing  394  for  and  106  against,  less  than  20  out 
of  the  106  being  laymen. 

The  Majority  Report  was  sent  to  the  congrega- 
tions of  the  Norwegian  Synod  for  their  indorse- 
ment, and  at  this  writing  (March  ist,  1914)  the  re- 
turns to  tlie  President,  Dr.  Stub,  show  a  most  grati- 
fying unanimity  on  the  part  of  the  congregations  in 
favor  of  the  Majority  Report. 

The  last  joint  meeting  of  the  three  union  commit- 
tees was  held  at  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  January  21st 
to  23d,  1914,  the  result  of  which  was  the  unanimous 
agreement  to  recommend  to  the  next  Synodical  con- 
ventions   the    consolidation    of    the    three    Church 


OF  THE  UNITED  NORWEGIAN  CHURCH  245 

bodies.  Two  snb-commiltees  were  elected  to  report 
to  a  meeting  of  the  Joint  Committee  to  be  held  in 
March,  1914.  One  of  these  sub-committees  is  to 
take  under  advisement  and  recommend  conditions 
of  union.  The  second  sub-committee  was  instructed 
to  recommend  draft  for  consolidation  and  Articles 
of  Incorporation. 


The  statistical  report  of  191 2  shows  the  following 
figures:  589  pastors  and  professors,  1570  congre- 
gations, 276,596  souls,  170,000  communicant  mem- 
bers, and  nearly  40,000  children  attending  the  paro- 
chial schools.  A  theological  seminary  with  88  stu- 
dents, a  college  with  541  students,  a  normal  school 
with  154  students,  and  6  smaller  colleges  with  122 1 
students.  In  191 2  it  had  17  missionaries,  34  evan- 
gelists and  18  native  workers  in  China.  And  in 
Madagascar  it  had  16  missionaries,  4  native  pastors 
and  3 1  evangelists.  The  Mission  Treasurer  reports 
receipts  for  the  same  year  $172,221.54.  The  Syn- 
odical  property  amounts  to  nearly  $2,000,000.00. 
A  Jubilee  Fund  is  being  raised  which  has,  at  this 
writing,  almost  reached  $400,000.00.  It  has  3  or- 
phan homes,  3  old  people's  homes,  a  deaconess  home 
and  a  half  dozen  liospitals.  It  also  has  a  Professor 
Fund  of  over  $124,000.00. 


The  Lutheran  Free  Church 

By  PROFESSOR  JOHN  O.  EVJEN,  PH.  D. 

Professor  of  Theology  in  Augsburg  Seminary 

MOST  of  the  adherents  of  the  Lutheran  Free 
Church  are  Norwegian  or  of  Norwegian  an- 
cestry. Norwegian  Lutherans  were  in  America  as 
early  as  1630.  In  a  work  of  mine,  now  in  press, 
''Scandinavian  Im.migrants  in  New  York,  1630- 
1674,"  I  have  written  the  biographies  of  fifty-seven 
Norwegian,  ninety-six  Danish,  and  thirty- four  Swe- 
dish immigrants,  who  settled  in  New  Netherland, 
mainly  in  New  Amsterdam,  between  the  years  1630 
and  1674.  A  few  of  these  joined  the  Dutch  Re- 
formed Church,  but  the  vast  majority  adhered,  at 
least  nominally,  to  the  creed  of  their  native  home, 
the  Lutheran,  while  many  formally  joined  the  Luth- 
eran churches  in  the  State  of  New  York.  The  first 
"Dutch"  Lutheran  church  in  the  city  of  New  Am- 
sterdam, v/as  not,  as  hitherto  has  been  supposed, 
Dutch.  It  was  quite  cosmopolitan ;  it  counted  some 
Dutch  members,  but  the  majority  of  its  members 
were  Germans,  Danes,  Norwegians  and  Swedes. 
There  were  fully  as  many  Germans  in  New  York, 
1 630- 1 674,  as  Scandinavians.  The  leading  layman 
(246) 


OF  THE  LUTHERAN  FREE  CHURCH  247 

among  the  Lutherans  in  New  Amsterdam  about  the 
year  1653  ^^'^^  Paulus  Schrick,  from  Nurnberg,  in 
Germany:  and  the  person  wlio  was  suspected  by 
the  Dutch  Reformed  preachers  in  New  Amsterdam 
as  having  concealed,  for  a  whole  winter,  on  his 
farm,  John  Gutwasser,  the  first  Dutch  Lutheran 
minister  in  New  Amsterdam,  was  Laurence  Noor- 
man,  a  Norwegian. 

Aside  from  the  Swedish  churches  on  the  Dela- 
ware, the  members  of  which  we  have  not  taken 
along  in  the  count  given  above,  the  Scandinavians 
in  New  York  formed  no  Scandinavian  Lutheran 
congregations  in  the  seventeenth  century.  They 
were  too  few  in  number. 

Norwegian  Lutheran  congregations  were  organ- 
ized in  our  country  after  the  forties  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, when  the  immigration  from  Norway  assumed 
greater  dimensions.  The  Norwegian  immigrants 
of  the  forties  and  of  the  succeeding  generation  had 
received  their  ecclesiastical  training  in  an  exclusive 
state  church.  For  the  majority  of  them  a  free 
church  ineant  a  copy  of  the  state  church,  emanci- 
pated, however,  from  state  legislation.  This  implied 
a  hierarchic,  or,  at  the  best,  a  quasi-hierarchic  gov- 
ernment and  leadership,  passive  congregations,  a 
mass  church,  which  in  the  name  of  pure  doctrine 
held  aloof  from,  and  even  applied  the  confessional 
^'damnant"  to,  such  church  bodies  or  local  con- 
gregations as  had  deviated  from  the  traditions  of 


248  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

the  fathers.  A  minority  of  these  immigrants,  hav- 
ing felt  the  blessing  of  the  Hauge's  movement  in 
Norway,  went  to  another  extreme.  They  did  not 
favor  organized  congregations,  but  informal  assem- 
blies of  Christians  who  sought  to  be  edified  by  lay 
preachers  and  made  room  for  the  ordained  minister 
only  when  the  sacraments  were  to  be  administered. 

To  neither  of  these  extremes  did  the  immigrants 
belong  who,  being  averse  to  exclusive  orthodoxy 
and  friendly  to  lay  activity,  on  the  whole  repre- 
sented the  work  of  the  Bergenske  Reformvenner  (a 
group  of  liberty-loving  Lutherans  in  the  western 
part  of  Norway,  who  advocated  a  return  to  the 
genuine  Reformation  principles  of  polity),  and  who 
found  their  way,  in  and  after  1870,  to  the  Nor- 
wegian-Danish Conference,  organized  in  1870. 

Not  long  after  its  organization  the  Conference 
developed  within  its  ranks  two  parties,  the  liberal 
and  the  conservative,  or  the  "new  school"  and  the 
"old  school."  The  new  school,  whose  leaders  were 
the  theological  professors,  Sven  Oftedal  and  Georg 
Sverdrup,  contended  for  Scriptural,  congregational 
liberty  in  opposition  to  hierarchic  or  synodic  gov- 
ernment, and  for  giving  students  of  theology  such 
a  training  as  would  further  the  true  interests  of  the 
congregation  according  to  the  teachings  of  the 
Word. 

Says  Professor  Oftedal,  in  an  affidavit  he  made 
in  1897: 


OF  THE  LUTHERAN  FREE  CHURCH  249 

"At  the  time  (1873)  I  thus  became  connected  with  Augs- 
burg Seminary,  there  existed  a  difference  of  opinion  among 
Norwegian  Lutherans  respecting  church  polity  and  methods 
of  theological  instruction.  Such  difference  of  opinion  has 
ever  since  existed  among  them,  and  contributed  largely  to  the 
controversies  which  thereafter  arose  in  the  Conference,  as 
will  be  shown  in  this  affidavit.  On  the  one  hand  were  the 
adherents  of  the  'neiu  school,'  as  it  is  called,  whose  convic- 
tions were  and  are  that  the  individual  congregation  is  'the 
church/  and  should  act  with  other  congregations  for  common 
purpose  only,  and  reserve  to  itself  control  respecting  questions 
pertaining  to  the  administration  of  its  own  affairs  and  those 
also  bearing  upon  'purity  of  doctrine/  as  these  words  are 
understood  among  theologians.  Those  entertaining  these 
views  respecting  church  polity  call  them  'free  church'  ideas. 
On  the  same  side  were  those  who  believed  that  ministers 
should  be  trained  and  educated  in  accordance  with  these  views, 
and  with  reference  to  their  future  calling,  throughout  their 
collegiate  or  preparatory  course  as  well  as  during  their  theo- 
logical course,  as  the  same  is  commonly  understood. 

"On  the  other  side  were  the  adherents  of  what  is  called  the 
'old  school/  who  opposed,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  the 
views  of  the  new  school,  and  desired,  as  it  was  believed,  to 
partially  adopt  or  retain  certain  methods  of  church  govern- 
ment prevailing  in  the  established  or  state  church  of  Norway. 

"The  theological  professors  and  instructors  of  Augsburg 
Seminary,  and  its  board  of  trustees  now  in  control  of  the 
seminary,  have  adhered  to  the  new  school  as  herein  defined, 
and  have  conducted  the  seminary  in  accordance  with  its 
view.  .  .  ."     [Italics  mine.] 

Since  1883  the  "new  school"  was  in  the  majority. 
In  1890  the  Conference  united  with  the  Norwegian 
Augiistana  Synod  and  the  Anti-Missourian  Broth- 
erhood, forming  the  Norwegian  United  Church. 
On  the  organization  of  this  body  it  was  expected 


250  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

that  it  would  include  Augsburg  Seminary,  founded 
in  1869,  the  oldest  Norwegian  divinity  school  in 
America.  This  school  had  been  incorporated  under 
the  laws  of  Minnesota,  and  its  management  was  in 
the  hands  of  a  board  of  trustees.  When  the  demand 
came  that  the  seminary  should,  according  to  an 
agreement  with  the  Norwegian-Danish  Conference, 
be  transferred  to  the  United  Norwegian  Church  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  enable  that  church  to  control 
it  entirely,  it  became  evident  to  some  that  material 
changes  were  intended  in  the  plan  of  the  school, 
and  on  this  account  the  board  of  trustees  refused  to 
transfer,  unconditionally,  the  property  and  manage- 
ment of  the  seminary  to  the  United  Church. 

The  position  taken  by  the  trustees  of  the  seminary 
was  due  to  differences  of  another  sort  than  those 
involving  mere  rights  of  property.  Prof.  Adolph 
Spaeth  diagnosed  the  differences  correctly,  in  stating 
in  the  Herzog-Hauck  Realencyclopadie,  XIV.,  p. 
204,  that  the  United  Church  did  not  approve  of  the 
view  which  Augsburg  Seminary  had  in  regard  to 
the  requirements  of  a  theological  education,  in  re- 
gard to  the  ministry,  the  congregation  and  the 
church.  For  further  information  see  my  article, 
"Georg  Sverdrup,"  in  the  same  Realencyclopadie, 

XXIV.,  pp.  537-555. 

These  differences  resulted  in  a  sharp  disagree- 
ment and  the  withdrawal,  and  in  some  cases  expul- 
sion from  the  United  Church  of  certain  churches 


OF  THE  LUTHERAN  FREE  CHURCH  25I 

and  ministers  because  of  their  support  of  the  posi- 
tion taken  by  the  trustees  of  the  seminary. 

The  members,  lay  and  clerical,  of  the  churches 
which  had  withdrawn  or  had  been  expelled  were 
known,  1893- 1897,  as  the  Friends  of  Augs- 
burg. They  had  no  other  organization  than  a  vol- 
untary meeting.  Nevertheless  they  carried  on  the 
work  of  an  organized  Synod,  having  their  divinity 
school,  home  and  foreign  missions,  deaconess  insti- 
tute, orphans'  home,  and  publishing  business. 

In  1897  they  adopted  the  name  of  the  "Lutheran 
Free  Church,"  but  continued  along  essentially  the 
same  lines.  The  congregations  subscribing  to  the 
principles  of  the  Lutheran  Free  Church  are  entirely 
free  and  independent  of  one  another  and  of  com- 
mon organization.  The  work  conducted  by  the 
Free  Church  is  in  the  hands  of  independent  boards, 
which,  as  far  as  possible,  act  in  accordance  with  the 
consensus  of  opinion  expressed  by  the  annual  meet- 
ing. Any  member  of  a  Lutheran  congregation  can 
become  a  member  of  this  meeting  by  subscribing  to 
the  principles  of  the  Lutheran  Free  Church  and 
promising  to  support  it  in  its  object.  The  boards 
seek  financial  support  through  voluntary  contribu- 
tions from  congregations  and  individuals,  wherever 
tliey  can  enlist  sympathy. 

Church  includes  (i)  Augsburg  Seminary,  Minneap- 
Church  includes  (i)  Augsburg  Seminary,  Minneap- 
olis, Minn.     It  has  three  departments,  the  prepara- 


252  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

tory  (four  years),  the  classical  (four  years),  the 
theological  (three  years).  It  has  four  theological 
professors,  who  also  give  some  instruction  in  the 
college,  six  college  professors  and  a  number  of  other 
instructors.  (2)  Bethany  College,  Everett,  Wash., 
organized  in  1904.  It  has  six  professors.  (3)  Oak 
Grove  Lutheran  Ladies'  Seminary,  Fargo,  N.  D., 
organized  in  1906-  It  has  four  professors.  In  1913 
the  number  of  students  in  Augsburg  Seminary  was 
160;  in  Oak  Grove  Lutheran  Ladies'  Seminary,  99; 
in  Bethany  College,  40. 

The  Home  Missionary  work  of  the  Lutheran 
Free  Church  is  carried  on  by  the  Board  of  Home 
Missions  (since  1893).  It  supplies  about  100 
churches.  The  contributions  for  this  work,  in  the 
current  fiscal  year,  are  estimated  at  $11,000.00. 

The  Foreign  Missionary  work  is  under  the  care 
of  the  Lutheran  Board  of  Missions,  incorporated 
in  1899,  and  is  carried  on  in  Madagascar.  It  has  de- 
cided to  conduct  missionary  work  in  China  also.  It 
reports  16  missionaries  and  75  native  helpers,  occu- 
pying 3  stations  and  30  outstations ;  3  main  churches 
with  1200  members;  i  hospital,  treating  8500  pa- 
tients annually ;  and  an  orphanage  with  45  inmates. 
The  property  value  is  estimated  at  $10,000.00,  and 
the  total  amount  contributed  for  the  last  fiscal  year 
was  about  $14,000.00. 

The  adherents  of  the  Free  Church  support  ( i )  the 
Norwegian  Deaconess  Hospital    (founded    1889), 


OF  THE  LUTHERAN  FREE  CHURCH  253 

Minneapolis,  Minn.  It  has  property  valued  at  $120,- 
000.00.  (2)  Grand  Forks  Deaconess  Hospital 
(1899),  Grand  Forks,  N.  D.  Its  property  is  valued 
at  $50,000.00.  (3)  Bethesda  Homes  (orphanage), 
Willmar,  Minn.  Its  property  is  valued  at  $50,- 
000.00.  (4)  Martha  Marie  Orphans'  Home 
(founded  1891),  Poulsbo,  Wash.  Its  property  is 
valued  at  $20,000.00.  The  amount  contributed  for 
the  maintenance  of  the  two  orphanages,  in  the  last 
fiscal  year,  was  $14,400.00. 

Those  who  can  be  designated  as  adherents  of  the 
principles  of  the  Lutheran  Free  Church  and  con- 
tributors to  its  activities  are  about  30,000  communi- 
cants. They  support,  besides  the  work  mentioned 
above,  136  pastors,  who  serve  380  congregations 
and  preach  at  no  stations  where  no  congregations 
as  yet  have  been  organized.  They  have  about  290 
church  buildings,  conduct  255  Sunday  schools,  270 
day  schools  for  religious  instruction.  The  church 
property,  including  70  parsonages,  is  valued  at 
$1,220,000.00,  against  which  there  appears  an  in- 
debtedness of  $66,180.00,  only  five  and  a  half  per- 
cent of  the  total  value. 

In  doctrine  the  Lutheran  Free  Church  recognizes 
the  Bible  as  the  one  perfect  divine  revelation  for  the 
salvation  of  man,  and  the  absolute  rule  for  Christian 
faith,  doctrine  and  life.  It  adheres  to  the  Augsburg 
Confession  and  Luther's  Smaller  Catechism,  as 
agreeing  with  the  Scriptures.    It  considers  practical 


254  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

Christian  experience  an  absolutely  necessary  quali- 
fication for  church  membership,  and  especially  for 
ministers  and  teachers. 

In  polity  the  church  emphasizes  the  independence 
and  liberty  of  the  individual  congregation,  but  does 
not  attempt  a  solid  and  final  organization,  lest  strict 
limits  should  hinder  the  movement  the  church  repre- 
sents. Its  principles  of  polity  and  rules  for  work  are 
seen  in  the  Guiding  Principles  and  Rides  of  the 
Lutheran  Free  Church,  which  are  the  following : 

A.  Guiding  Principles 

1.  The  congregation  is,  according  to  the  Word 
of  God,  the  right  form  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on 
earth. 

2.  The  congregation  consists  of  believers  who, 
by  using  the  means  of  grace  and  the  spiritual  gifts 
as  directed  in  the  Word  of  God,  seek  their  own  and 
their  fellow-men's  salvation  and  eternal  blessing. 

3.  The  congregation  needs,  according  to  the  New 
Testament,  an  external  organization  with  register 
of  its  members,  election  of  officers,  stated  times  and 
places  for  its  meetings,  etc. 

4.  As  not  all  members  belonging  to  the  external 
organization  of  the  congregation  always  are  believ- 
ers, and  as  such  hypocrites  often  falsely  seek  con- 
solation in  the  external  relation  with  the  congre- 
gation, it  is  the  sacred  task  of  the  congregation  to 
purify  itself  by  a  quickening  preaching  of  the  Word 


OF  THE  LUTHERAN  FREE  CHURCH  255 

of  God,  by  earnest  exhortation  and  admonition,  and 
by  exclusion  of  manifest  and  perverse  sinners. 

5.  The  congregation  governs  its  own  affairs 
under  the  authority  of  the  Word  of  God  and  the 
Spirit,  and  acknowledges  no  other  ecclesiastical 
authority  or  government  as  a  higher  tribunal. 

6.  The  free  congregation  esteems  and  cherishes 
all  the  spiritual  gifts  which  the  Lord  gives  it  for 
its  spiritual  upbuilding,  and  endeavors  to  quicken 
the  gifts  and  further  the  use  of  them. 

7.  The  free  congregation  gladly  accepts  the 
mutual  help  which  congregations  can  give  each 
other  in  the  labor  for  promoting  the  kingdom  of 
God. 

8.  Such  mutual  help  consists  partly  therein,  that 
the  spiritual  forces  of  one  congregation  render  aid 
to  the  other  by  free  conferences,  mutual  visits,  lay- 
men's activities,  etc. ;  partly  therein,  that  the  con- 
gregations, voluntarily  and  in  accord  with  the 
prompting  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  co-operate  in  solv- 
ing such  problems  as  are  beyond  the  ability  of  the 
individual  congregation. 

9.  Among  such  objects  can  be  specifically  men- 
tioned :  the  Theological  Seminary,  the  distribution 
of  Bibles  and  of  other  books  and  papers,  Inner  Mis- 
sions, Foreign  Missions,  Missions  among  the  Jews, 
Deaconess  Institutes,  Orphanages  and  other  works 
of  charity. 

10.  Free  congregations  have  no  right  to  demand 


256  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

that  other  congregations  shall  subject  themselves  to 
their  opinion,  v/ill,  judgment  or  decision;  for  which 
reason  every  dominion  of  a  majority  of  congrega- 
tions over  a  minority  is  to  be  rejected. 

11.  The  joint-agencies,  which  might  be  found  to 
be  desirable  for  the  co-operation  of  congregations — 
such  as  greater  or  lesser  meetings,  committees,  offi- 
cers, etc., — cannot,  in  a  Lutheran  free  church,  im- 
pose on  the  individual  congregation  any  duty,  obli- 
gation, restriction  or  burden,  but  is  only  entitled  to 
present  motions  and  requests  to  congregations  and 
individuals. 

12.  Every  free  congregation,  as  every  individual 
believer,  is  actuated  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  in- 
vested with  the  right  of  love,  to  do  good  and  to 
work  for  the  salvation  of  souls  and  the  awakening 
of  spiritual  life,  as  far  as  its  ability  and  strength 
reaches ;  in  such  a  free,  spiritual  activity,  the  congre- 
gation is  not  circumscribed  by  parochial  limits  or 
synodical  boundaries. 

B.  Revised  Rules  for  Work 
I    The  name  of  this  society  is  The  Lutheran  Free 
Church. 

2.  Its  object  is  to  work  toward  making  all  Nor- 
wegian Lutheran  congregations  living  and  free  con- 
gregations, so  that  they,  according  to  their  call  and 
their  ability,  can  work  in  spiritual  independence  and 
liberty  for  the  cause  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  at 


OF  THE  LUTHERAN  FREE  CHURCH  257 

home  and  abroad,  through  such  organs  (agencies) 
and  institutions  as  the  congregations  themselves 
might  determine. 

3.  This  object  it  endeavors  to  reahze  by  training 
men  and  women  for  spiritual  work  in  and  for  the 
congregation,  by  holding  larger  or  lesser  meetings, 
by  circulating  serviceable  literature,  by  organizing 
free-church  committees  and  societies,  by  sending  out 
itinerant  preachers,  and  by  using  such  other  means 
as  answer  to  the  needs  of  the  times. 

4    The  Free  Church  consists  of  congregations  * 

*  The  phrase,  "consists  of  congregations."  is  rather  mis- 
leading. It  should  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  such  state- 
ments as  are  found,  e.  g.,  in  E.  W.  Hiscox's  "New  Directory 
of  Baptist  Churches,"  pp.  ZZ'^-ZZS,  which  work  in  connection 
with  R.  W.  Dale's  "Manual  of  Congregational  Principles" 
(London.  1902^  will  aid  the  reader  in  appreciating  "Guiding 
Principles,"  as  embodying  Scriptural  principles  of  polity. 
However,  the  phrase  may  stand  if  it  be  borne  in  mind  how 
it  is  used  in  the  statement :  "The  entire  Lutheran  Church 
consists  of  Lutheran  congregations."  "Consists,"  as  used  in 
this  sentence,  does  not  imply  a  politico-ecclesiastic  organiza- 
tion, or  the  accountability  of  a  local  congregation  to  any  other 
congregation  or  any  combination  of  congregations.  The  con- 
gregation as  the  body  of  Christ  is  subject  to  other  laws  than 
those  of  a  commonwealth  or  those  sanctioned  by  traditional 
"Kirchenrecht." 

As  to  the  prospects  for  the  Free  Church  entering  into 
"organic"  union  with  a  Synod,  such  a  union  would  be  an  im- 
possibility, according  to  Prof.  Sverdrup,  the  author  of 
"Guiding  Principles"  (Folkebladet,  November  22d,  1905).  He 
saj-s :  "The  Free  Church  consists,  as  is  well  known,  of  an 
annual  meeting,  open  to  all  Lutheran  Christians,  regardless  of 

17 


258  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

which,  ill  their  constitution,  unreservedly  subscribe 
to  the  ancient  ecumenical  symbols,  Luther's  Small 
Catechism  and  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession, 
and  which,  by  resolution,  acknowledge  the  Princi- 
ples and  Rules  of  the  Free  Church,  and  make  a  re- 
port thereof  to  the  Secretary,  regardless  of  other 
synodical  affiliation. 

5.  The  Free  Church  holds  an  annual  meeting, 
which,  as  a  rule,  begins  the  second  Wednesday  of 
the  month  of  June;  elects  the  necessary  committees, 
itinerant  preachers  and  officers;  and  determines 
what  church  activities  the  meeting  will  especially 
recommend  to  the  congregations. 

6.  The  right  to  vote  in  the  meetings  of  the  Free 
Church  is  possessed  by  all  voting  church  members 
who  come  from  the  congregations  which  constitute 
the  Free  Church ;  the  right  to  vote  is  also  possessed 
by  voting  members  of  other  Lutheran  congregations 

Synodic  affiliation,  who  will  work  for  free  and  living  congre- 
gations. With  this  annual  meeting  a  Synod  cannot  unite." 
Co-operation  is,  of  course,  possible. 

When  the  Free  Church  Committee,  in  1913,  declared  that 
in  order  to  secure  a  more  cordial  relation  between  the  United 
Church  and  the  Free  Church,  the  inevitable  condition  would 
be  an  acknowledgment  on  the  part  of  the  United  Church 
that  it  had  "sinned"  against  the  Free  Church  and  should 
"repent" — the  Free  Church  Committee  disregarded  the  spirit 
of  "Guiding  Principles"  and  the  teachings  of  Prof.  Sverdrup. 
who  had  Scriptural  views  on  the  question  as  to  whether  the 
congregations  of  a  Synod  are  responsible  for  the  actions  of 
the  Synod.     (Folkebladet,  February  24th,  1897.) 


OF  THE  LUTHERAN  FREE  CHURCH  259 

who,  by  sending  in  to  the  Secretary  special  blanks 
which  they  have  signed,  make  known  that  they  ac- 
knowledge the  Principles  and  Rules  of  the  Free 
Church  and  will  work  for  the  object  stated  in  para- 
graph 2.  *■■ 

7.  I'he  officers  of  the  Free  Church  shall  be  a 
President,  a  Vice-President  and  a  Secretary.  They 
shall  be  elected  at  the  annual  meeting  and  serve  for 
one  year.  The  President  presides  at  the  annual 
meeting,  the  Secretary  keeps  the  minutes  of  the  an- 
nual meeting;  these  two  officers  jointly  publish  the 
annual  report  of  the  Free  Church  and  decide  the 
time  and  place  for  the  annual  meeting,  if  the  pre- 
vious annual  meeting  did  not  decide  this  matter; 
they  also  see  to  that  the  annual  meeting  be  an- 
nounced at  least  two  months  before  it  convenes. 

8.  The  annual  m.eeting  elects  a  Committee  on  Or- 
ganization, consisting  of  three  members.  Each  year 
a  member  is  elected  to  serve  for  three  years. 

9.  (a)  The  Comm.ittee  on  Organization  works 
for  making  the  Principles  and  Rules  of  the  Free 
Church  better  known  and  discussed  in  the  congre- 
gations, so  that  the  task  of  the  Free  Church  can,  in 
an  ever-increasing  degree,  be  more  clearly  under- 
stood and  better  done. 

(h)  It  w^orks  for  having  the  congregations  as 
fully  and  generally  represented  as  possible  in  the 
annual  meeting  of  the  Free  Church. 

(c)  It  arranges  for  the  holding  of  larger  meet- 


26o         DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND   USAGES 

ings  and  decides  as  to  the  time,  the  place,  the  pro- 
gram and  the  speakers  for  such  meetings. 

(d)  The  committee  endeavors  to  bring  about  a 
general  reciprocation  of  the  spiritual  factors  in  the 
congregations. 

(^)  It  will,  where  desired,  give  congregations  and 
ministers  counsel  and  guidance. 

(/)  Each  year  it  collects  and  submits  to  the  an- 
nual meeting  as  complete  data  as  possible  with  re- 
gard to  the  work  of  the  Free  Church  in  its  various 
branches,  such  as  the  Congregational  Work,  the 
Home  and  Foreign  Missions,  Sunday  School,  Wo- 
men's Auxiliaries,  Young  People's  Societies,  Church 
buildings.  Church  dedications,  etc. 

TO.  The  annual  meeting  elects  each  year  an  Or- 
dinator,  who  shall  aid  the  congregations  in  ordain- 
ing candidates  in  theology  who  have  been  duly 
called  as  ministers. 

11.  The  annual  meeting  likewise  elects  a  Super- 
intendent of  Home  Missions,  who  shall  devote  his 
whole  time  to  the  service  of  the  Home  Missions  and 
aid  the  Board  of  Home  Missions  in  arranging  the 
Home  Missions  activities.  He  is  elected  for  three 
years,  and  his  salary  is  determined  by  the  Board  of 
Home  Missions. 

12.  The  annual  meeting  elects  a  Board  of  School 
Directors  for  Augsburg  Seminary,  and  nominates 
members  of  Lutheran  Board  of  Missions,  Board  of 
Home  Missions,  Augsburg  Seminary  Corporation, 


OF  THE  LUTHERAN  FREE  CHURCH  261 

and  Board  of  Trustees  of  Augsburg  Seminary. 

13.  The  President,  the  Secretary,  the  Ordinator, 
and  presidents  of  permanent  committees,  cannot  be 
re-elected  for  more  than  two  consecutive  terms  of 
office. 

14.  At  the  annual  meetings  of  the  Free  Church, 
reports  are  given  by  the  Committee  on  Organiza- 
tion, Lutheran  Board  of  Missions,  Board  of  Home 
Missions,  and  Augsburg  Seminary,  and  by  commit- 
tees appointed  by  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Free 
Churcli,  and  by  such  ecclesiastical  institutions  as  the 
annual  meeting  gives  permission  to  present  reports. 

15.  These  rules  can  be  altered  by  the  following 
procedure :  A  motion  to  make  an  alteration  is  pre- 
sented in  an  annual  meeting  and  is  voted  upon  in  the 
subsequent  annual  meeting;  to  pass  this  motion, 
two-thirds  majority  of  all  votes  cast  is  necessary. 

Note. — In  preparing  this  article  the  author  wishes  to  say- 
he  h?.s  made  free  use  of  the  article  on  the  Free  Church,  in 
Special  Reports,  Bureau  of  the  Census.  Religious  Bodies, 
1906,  Part  II.,  p.  392,  which  is  based  on  a  manuscript  of 
Prof.  Sverdrup,  written  in  1907,  and  published  posthumously 
in  Professor  G.  Sverdrup's  "Samlede  Skrifter  i  Udvalg.."  I., 
pp.  229  ff.  Minneapolis,  1909.  Use  has  also  been  made  of 
Prof.  A.  Helland's  "Den  lutherske  Frikirke  og  dens  Falles- 
gjoremaal,"  prepared  for  the  Centennial  Exposition  in  Nor- 
way, 1914. 


The  United  Danish  Evangel- 
ical Lutheran  Church  in 
America 

By  REV.  PROF.  P.  S.  VIG 

IN  order  rightly  to  understand  Danish  Church 
work  and  Danish  Church  life  in  America,  it  is 
necessary  to  know  something  of  the  Church  in  Den- 
mark, its  divisions,  confessional  basis,  etc.,  because 
these  things  are  found,  and  naturally  so,  among  the 
Danes  in  America,  and  is  the  reason  why  the  Danish 
Lutherans  here  are  divided  into  two  church  bodies. 
The  Lutheran  Church  in  Denmark,  known  since 
1849  as  "The  Danish  National  Church,"  as  It  is 
called  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Kingdom  of  Den- 
mark of  said  year,  dates  back  to  1536,  when  Chris- 
tian III  became  King  of  Denmark,  and  with  the 
consent  of  the  representatives  of  the  people  abol- 
ished the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and  Introduced 
Lutheran  doctrine  and  worship.  From  1536  till 
1849  the  Lutheran  Church  was  the  only  church 
tolerated  in  the  kingdoms  of  Denmark  and  Norway, 
united  under  the  same  government  till  18 14,  being 
in  fact  governed  by  the  state,  the  king  being  its 
(262) 


OF  THE  UNITED  DANISH  LUTHERAN  CHURCH        263 

supreme  head.  ''In  the  Danish  Law  of  Christian 
the  Fifth"  (1683),  the  confessional  basis  of  the 
Danish  Church  is  stated  as  follows :  'That  religion 
alone  is  allowed  in  the  kingdoms  and  lands  of  the 
king,  which  is  in  accordance  with  Holy  Scripture, 
the  Apostolical,  Nicene  and  Athanasian  Symbols 
and  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  delivered 
in  1530 — and  Luther's  Smaller  Catechism."  The 
other  Lutheran  Confessions  have  not  been  adopted 
by  the  Danish  Church. 

The  University  of  Copenhagen  (reorganized  as  a 
Lutheran  University  in  1536)  is  the  only  training 
school  for  ministers  in  Denmark,  and  graduates 
from  the  University  only  can  be  ordained  as  minis- 
ters of  the  Danish  Church,  as  a  rule.  "The  Danish 
Church  Ritual,"  of  1685,  gives  in  its  eleven  chap- 
ters rules  for  church  services  and  the  administration 
of  the  sacraments,  churching  of  women,  visitation 
of  the  sick,  the  afflicted,  the  possessed,  prisoners 
and  criminals,  the  excommunicated,  marriage,  buri- 
als and  ordination  of  bishops  and  ministers.  The 
Ritual  has  been  changed  in  many  points,  but  is  still 
in  force. 

'The  Danish  Altarbook"  (Liturgy)  of  1688, 
with  the  learned  and  beautiful  preface  by  Dr.  Hans 
Bagger,  then  Bishop  of  Zealand,  gives  the  pre- 
scribed collects,  epistles  and  gospel  text  for  each 
Sunday  and  festival  of  the  church  year,  stated 
prayers  for  several  occasions,  forms  for  the  admin- 


264  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES    AND    USAGES 

istration  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  con- 
firmation, marriage  and  burial,  also  the  history  of 
the  passion  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour.  New  texts 
have  been  prescribed  for  alternate  years,  also  new 
forms  for  administration  of  the  sacraments,  mar- 
riage and  confirmation.  The  authorized  hymnbooks 
of  Denmark  are  at  present  "The  Roskilde  Konvent 
Hymnbook,"  of  1855,  with  two  appendices,  and  the 
''Hymnbook  for  Church  and  Home,"  of  1897. 
Hymnbook  for  Church  and  Home  contains  675 
hymns  with  index  and  list  of  authors  with  biogra- 
phies. Its  second  part  contains  collects,  two  lists  of 
epistles  and  gospels  and  prayers  for  church  and 
home,  the  seven  penitential  psalms,  etc. 

The  authorized  text-books  in  religious  Instruction 
in  the  Danish  common  schools  are :  Bishop  C.  V. 
Balslev's  Luther's  Smaller  Catechism  with  an  ex- 
planation— a  text-book  for  the  unconfirmed  youth. 

Same:  Bible  History — with  some  church  history. 
Most  Danes  in  America,  especially  of  the  older  gen- 
eration, are  well  acquainted  with  the  hymnbook  and 
have  learned  Balslev's  book  by  heart  before  they 
were  confirmed ;  it  would  be  a  shame  not  to  know 
one's  catechism  by  heart. 

So  much  as  to  the  confessional  inheritance  of  the 
Danish  Lutherans  in  America. 

The  most  influential  parties  of  the  Church  of 
Denmark  at  present  might,  to  use  English  party 
names,  be  designated  as  the  High  Church  party,  the 


OF  THE  UNITED  DANISH  LUTHERAN  CHURCH        265 

Low  Church  and  Broad  Church  parties,  but  those 
names  do  not  mean  the  same  in  Danish  as  in  Eng- 
lish. ''The  High  Church  party,'  consisting  mostly 
of  the  disciples  of  Mynster  and  Martensen,  lays 
great  emphasis  on  the  Danish  National  Church,  its 
ritual,  law  and  order,  and  is  skeptical,  if  not  inimi- 
cal, towards  all  new  movements  and  measures,  if 
not  from  without,  then  from  below. 

The  Lozu  Church  in  Denmark  is  better  known  as 
The  Inner  Mission  Movement,  a  voluntary  associa- 
tion of  pastors  and  laymen  whose  aim  is  to  stir  up 
and  awaken  the  great  masses  of  the  Church,  and 
oppose  the  work  of  the  different  sects  who  have  been 
busy  in  Denmark  since  1849,  when  the  new  Con- 
stitution granted  liberty  of  worship.  The  Inner 
Mission  movement  was  begun  among  Christian  lay- 
men who  started  a  small  paper  and  sent  out  a  single 
colporteur  with  religious  tracts.  The  movement 
was  saved  from  becoming  a  sect  in  opposition 
to  the  Church  by  the  venerable  pastor,  C.  F.  Ronne 
(died  1890),  who  was  admitted  to  the  association, 
not  as  a  pastor,  but  as  a  Christian.  He  succeeded  in 
gaining  as  members  some  younger  ministers,  among 
them  Vilhelm  Beck  (1829-1901),  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  workers  and  leaders  in  the  Church  of 
Denmark  in  the  nineteenth  century.  He  had  the 
laymen's  association  reorganized  (1861)  as  "The 
Church  Association  for  Inner  Mission  in  Den- 
mark."    As  editor  of  the  small  weekly,  hmer  Mis- 


266  DISTINCTIVE    DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

sion  Tidende,  and  president  of  the  association,  Pas- 
tor Beck  has  had  a  powerful  influence  on  Danish 
Church  hfe,  and  as  preacher  of  the  gospel  he  had 
few  equals. 

The  third  powerful  party  in  the  Danish  Church, 
the  Broad  Church  party, if  you  please,  is  made  up  of 
the  followers  of  N.  F.  S.  Grundtvig  (1783-1872), 
one  of  the  mightiest  and  most  peculiar  personalities 
that  ever  lived  on  Danish  soil,  a  great  poet,  philoso- 
pher, historian,  warm  patriot  and  powerful  speaker 
in  church,  school  and  folk  meetings,  a  peculiar  vis- 
ionary and  a  hymn  writer  of  the  first  rank,  a  giant 
worker,  whose  writings,  lectures  and  pamphlets  run 
up  into  the  hundreds.  Grundtvig's  influence  in  Den- 
mark is  felt  everywhere,  and  will  be  for  generations 
to  come,  and  decidedly  so.  His  influence  upon  Dan- 
ish Church  life  has  been  great,  from  18 10,  as  the 
fiery  antagonist  of  Rationalism,  since  1825  as  prop- 
agator of  his  peculiar  view  of  the  so-called  Apostles' 
Creed  as  a  living  word  of  the  Lord's  mouth,  in- 
separably connected  with  baptism;  in  fact,  in  itself 
the  baptismal  covenant,  to  which  nothing  can  be 
added  and  from  which  nothing  can  be  taken  with- 
out risking  salvation.  The  Apostles'  Creed,  having 
always  been  the  condition  sine  qua  non  of  baptism, 
is  the  true  mark  of  the  Christian  Church,  the  stand- 
ard of  all  true  Christians,  while  Holy  Scripture, 
whose  inspiration  he  admits,  being  younger  than 
the  Church,  is  written  for  the  edification,  guidance 


OF  THE  UNITED  DANISH  LUTHERAN  CHURCH       26/ 

and  direction  of  Christians  in  all  times.  But  in 
itself  Scripture  is  dead  and  powerless,  while  the 
Lord's  word  (i.  c,  The  Apostles'  Creed  in  Baptism) 
is  not  only  living  but  life-creating. 

In  other  words,  Grundtvig  sets  tradition  above 
Holy  Scripture,  the  formal  principle  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  He  was  convinced  that  he  was  at 
one  with  Luther,  continuing  the  Reformation  that 
Luther  commenced,  and  always  confessed  himself 
a  faithful  son  of  Luther.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
few,  if  any,  had  drunk  deeper  of  the  fountain  of 
Holy  Scripture  than  Grundtvig;  its  language  was 
always  in  his  mind  when  he  wrote  or  spoke,  as  every 
reader  of  his  hymns  and  sermons  knows.  Grundt- 
vig's  followers  always  style  themselves  "The  Danish 
Christians,"  or,  "The  Churchly  Party."  Danish  is 
almost  a  part  of  their  religion,  and  as  they  claim 
to  have  the  only  true  mark  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
it  is  no  wonder  they  call  themselves  churchly. 

Danish  emigration  to  the  United  States  dates 
back  to  about  1840,  and  especially  after  1850,  when 
the  Mormon  propaganda  brought  many  deluded 
Danes  to  Zion  by  the  Great  Salt  Lake  of  Utah, 
where  thousands  of  them  are  to  be  found  to-day. 
A  great  many  of  the  first  Danish  Baptists  became 
Mormons,  the  first  Mormons  in  Denmark. 

The  first  Danish  Lutheran  mission  among  the 
Danes  in  America  commenced  in  1871,  about  a 
generation  too  late,  and  after  the  Baptists,  Adven- 


268  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES  AND  USAGES 

tists,  etc.,  had  reaped  a  rich  harvest  among  Danish 
immigrants. 

No  theological  candidate  from  the  University  of 
Copenhagen  had  the  heart  to  come  to  America  to 
administer  the  means  of  grace  to  his  countrymen. 
Two  laymen  were  sent  over  by  a  voluntary  commit- 
tee in  Denmark,  which  defrayed  their  traveling  ex- 
penses and  promised  to  have  young  men  educated  to 
come  over  and  help  them  when  needed.  One  of  the 
two  was  ordained  in  1871,  the  other  went  to  a  Nor- 
wegian Lutheran  seminary  in  Wisconsin  and  was 
ordained  in  1872.  At  the  same  time  two  Danish 
missionaries,  one  from  India  and  one  from  Africa, 
came  over  as  pastors  to  Danish  congregations  in 
Wisconsin.  In  1872  an  association  of  the  Danish 
pastors  was  formed  and  a  church  and  mission  paper 
started.  Some  years  afterwards  two  or  three  theo- 
logical candidates  came  over  and  worked  among  the 
Danes  in  Illinois,  Michigan  and  Iowa.  In  1878 
"The  Danish  Church  in  America"  was  organized 
and  adopted  its  first  constitution.  The  above  named 
committee  in  Denmark  was  composed  of  Grundt- 
vigians,  most  of  the  candidates  sent  to  America  had 
been  educated  in  Grundtvigian  schools,  consequently 
their  work  in  America  was  along  Grundtvigian 
lines.  Later  on,  when  some  non-Grundtvigians 
were  ordained  ministers  in  the  Danish  Church,  it 
became  evident  that  it  was  impossible  for  the  differ- 
ent parties  to  work  together  in  harmony,  differing 


I 


OF  THE  UNITED  DANISH  LUTHERAN  CHURCH        269 

as  they  were  about  the  formal  principle  of  the 
Church.  For  several  years  a  warm  fight  about 
Holy  Scriptures  raged  in  the  church  papers  and  at 
different  meetings.  Finally,  in  1894,  the  Danish 
Church  split  in  two,  the  followers  of  Grundtvig,  the 
majority,  remaining  where  they  were  while  the 
minority  of  the  ministers  and  congregations  formed 
a  union  under  the  name  of  'The  Danish  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church  in  North  America,"  and  started  a 
theological  seminary  at  Elk  Horn,  Iowa,  where  a 
high  school  had  been  founded  in  1878. 

In  1896  that  body  united  with  "The  Danish  Evan- 
gelical Association  of  America,"  a  church  body  of 
Danes  that  had  been  organized  in  1884,  and  was 
composed  of  Danish  pastors  and  congregations  who 
had  been  members  of  The  Norwegian  Danish 
Church  Conference.  The  newly- formed  church  body 
took  the  name  "The  United  Danish  Evangelical 
Church  in  America." 

It  has  its  theological  seminary  and  pro-seminary 
at  Blair,  Neb.,  founded  in  1886,  and  its  Publishing 
House  at  the  same  place. 

The  United  Church  has  its  ministers  and  congre- 
gations from  New  York  to  San  Francisco,  and  from 
Indian  Territory  to  Canada,  none  of  the  congrega- 
tions being  very  large,  most  of  them  both  small  and 
poor.  It  has  six  missionaries  among  the  heathen, 
two  among  the  Indians  in  Indian  Territory  and 
four  in  Japan.     One  of  its  pastors  is  doing  mis- 


270  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

sionary  work  among  the  Mormons  in  Salt  Lake 
City. 

The  Language. 
We  naturally  use  the  Danish  language  in  our 
pulpits  and  schools  because  it  is  the  language  of  our 
homes  and  of  our  books  and  papers.  We  do  not 
make  Danish  an  article  of  our  creed,  nor  do  we  con- 
sider it  a  burden  to  be  cast  off  as  soon  as  possible, 
but  we  use  it  as  a  means  for  our  church  work  to 
reach  our  people.  We  do  not  consider  the  English 
language  our  enemy,  nor  as  a  mark  of  higher  civili- 
zation and  culture.  We  use  it  in  our  churches  and 
Sunday  schools  and  colleges,  and  we  believe  that  it 
will  be  the  future  language  of  our  Church.  But  w^e 
do  not  consider  it  expedient  to  hasten  that  future 
in  an  unnatural  way.  Language  is  expression  of 
thought  and  mind,  and  as  such  one  of  the  finest 
instruments  known  and  associated  with  customs  and 
views  so  deep  that  nobody  ought  to  forget  that 
change  of  language  means  change  of  so  many  other 
important  things  and  will  take  place  very  slowly. 

Our  Doctrinal  Standpoint. 
I.  We  adhere  unflinchingly  to  Holy  Scripture 
as  the  word  of  God,  the  supreme  judge  of  doctrine 
and  life,  faith  and  practice,  the  means  of  our  salva- 
tion and  the  only  sure  guide  for  the  people  of  God 
in  the  world.  Whatever  is  in  conformity  with  the 
word  of  God  is  of  God,  and  whatever  conflicts  with 


OF  THE  UNITED  DANISH  LUTHERAN  CHURCH       27I 

that  rule  must  be  avoided.  We  hold  that  the  Bible 
was  not  the  word  of  God  when  it  was  written  only, 
but  it  is  the  word  of  God  to-day  and  forever. 

2.  We  adhere  to  the  confessional  books  of  the 
Danish  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  of  Denmark, 
the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Nicseno-Constantinopolitan 
and  Athanasian  Creeds,  the  Unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession  of  1530,  and  Luther's  Smaller  Cate- 
chism, as  the  living  voice  of  the  true  Church  of  God 
at  all  times,  and  the  connecting  link  between  us  and 
the  Church  in  which  we  were  born  and  reared,  and 
we  will  not  let  go  of  these  moorings,  because  they 
lead  us  to  the  word  of  God  and  thereby  to  God  and 
His  people. 

3.  We  unflinchingly  adhere  to  the  material  prin- 
ciple of  our  Lutheran  Church,  justification  of  grace 
alone,  through  Christ  alone,  by  faith  alone,  as  the 
only  hope  for  sinful  man,  the  only  sure  foundation 
for  the  Christian  Church,  and  the  capital  motive  for 
a  Christian  life, and  we  consider  it  as  our  main  social 
service  in  a  dying  world  to  preach  and  inculcate 
that  gospel  by  all  our  means  to  Greeks  and  bar- 
barians, the  wnse  and  the  unwise. 

Our  Practice. 
I.  Our  congregations  are  independent  and  self- 
governing  in  their  own  aflairs.     The  Conference 
cannot  command  them  nor  force  them.     To  be  ad- 
mitted as  mem.bers  of  our  Church  body  they  must 


2']2         DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND   USAGES 

adopt  a  constitution  in  conformity  with  our  con- 
fession and  send  an  application  for  membership  to 
the  annual  conference.  If  admitted,  each  congre- 
gation has  a  right  to  send  a  representative  for  each 
fifty  members  to  the  annual  meeting.  All  our  in- 
stitutions, schools,  orphan  homes,  missions,  etc., 
are  upheld  by  voluntary  contributions  from  our  con- 
gregations. 

2.  Our  Church  is  first  and  foremost  a  preaching 
Church.  Our  people  want  to  hear  the  word  of  God 
preached  not  only  on  Sundays  at  our  stated  services, 
but  also  on  weekdays.  Bible  readings,  young  peo- 
ple's meetings,  meetings  for  Home  Missions,  etc. 

Our  pastors  preach  more,  work  more  and  get  a 
smaller  salary  than  most  other  Lutheran  pastors  in 
the  world.  Our  church  people  hear  more  and  work 
more  than  most  other  Lutherans  in  the  world. 

3.  While  we  are  opposed  to  secret  oathbound  so- 
cieties, we  have  no  clause  in  our  constitutions  pro- 
hibiting members  of  such  societies  from  becoming 
members  of  our  Church.  It  is  not  necessary,  for 
we  have  but  few  applications  from  those  quarters, 
and  we  do  not  consider  them  as  worse  sinners  than 
other  sinners.  We  do  not  want  to  prevent  their 
families  and  children  from  being  with  us,  and  we 
know  that  most  of  our  people  have  entered  such 
societies  to  get  help  in  times  of  need  and  not  because 
they  wanted  to  get  away  from  their  church  and 
God.    We  do  not  want  to  waste  our  time  in  fighting 


OF  THE  UNITED  DANISH  LUTHERAN  CHURCH        273 

windmills,  because  we  have  better  and  more  im- 
portant things  to  do. 

4.  We  do  not  exchange  pulpits  with  preachers  of 
other  churches,  but  we  willingly  take  every  oppor- 
tunity to  preach  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ,  where 
such  is  offered  us.  We  do  not  teach  our  people 
that  mere  consent  to  orthodox  doctrine  is  saving, 
nor  that  salvation  depends  on  ever  so  many  nega- 
tives. We  want  every  man  to  know  and  to  show 
that  he  is  a  Christian,  not  because  we  say  so,  but 
because  the  word  of  God  says  so  and  the  Spirit  of 
God  testifies  to  that  fact.  All  who  are  in  Christ 
ought  to  work  for  Christ,  each  according  to  what  he 
has  and  is. 

5.  We  want  our  children  and  youth  taught  and 
instructed  in  the  doctrine  of  our  Church.  We, 
therefore,  have  not  Sunday  schools  only,  but  also 
summer  schools.  Most  of  our  congregations  have 
such  from  six  to  eight  weeks  every  summer,  and 
our  future  preachers  are  school  teachers,  in  Danish 
or  English,  as  the  case  may  be;  as  yet  mostly  in 
Danish.  We  are  very  sorry  to  see  that  our  English 
Lutheran  brethren  do  not  seem  to  care  much  for 
that  most  important  factor  in  the  work  of  our 
Church.  Our  children  are  our  best  Christians,  and 
they  have  a  right  to  ask  us  to  give  them  the  unadul- 
terated milk  of  the  word  that  they  may  grow  there- 
by. This,  indeed,  is  social  service,  and  there  is  a 
crying  need  for  it  everywhere. 

18 


274  DISTINCTIVE   DOCTRINES   AND    USAGES 

6.  We  want  a  Bible  in  every  home  of  our  Church 
body,  and  we  want  it  opened  every  day,  that  the 
word  of  God  may  shine  as  a  hght  in  a  dark  place, 
and  we  are  glad  to  say  that  in  a  great  many  homes 
the  word  of  God  is  read  daily,  and  our  many  devo- 
tional books,  from  Luther  down,  are  found  in  many 
home  libraries  and  studied  by  our  people.  We  do  not 
want  the  home  church  abolished  by  our  public  meet- 
ings, but  we  want  it  to  flourish  and  grow.  The 
public  preaching  of  the  word  ought  to  lead  to 
private  reflection  of  it  and  will  do  so  where  its 
necessity  is  emphasized  as  it  ought  to  be  by  every 
true  Lutheran  preacher.  We  want  our  people  edu- 
cated, but  never  educated  away  from  the  public  and 
private  use  of  the  word  of  God,  for  that  means 
death  both  to  our  people  and  our  Church. 

Concluding  Reflections. 
I.  Our  mission  field  is  very  large  and  promising, 
but  also  very  hard.  The  Danes  in  America  are  scat- 
tered far  and  wide  over  this  great  country.  The 
working  class  in  Denmark,  greatly  influenced  by 
Socialism,  is  inimical  to  the  Church  as  the  stay  of 
the  possessing  classes  and  the  support  of  wealth, 
and  holding  the  people  in  thraldom  of  the  rich. 
Many  of  the  emigrants  from  Denmark  now,  who 
are  not  inimical  to  the  Church,  have  been  influenced 
by  un-Lutheran  liberalism,  so  called,  not  recogniz- 
ing any  authority  but  their  own  fallible  judgment. 


OF  THE  UNITED  DANISH  LUTHERAN  CHURCH       275 

Materialism  is  setting  in  upon  our  people  in  Amer- 
ica from  every  side,  and  of  the  most  different  forms, 
and  the  English-speaking  churches,  even  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  are  trying  to  entice  away  from  us 
our  children  and  youth,  and  we  have  few  men  and 
small  means  to  the  great  work  before  us. 

2.  Still  we  are  not  despairing,  and  have  no  reason 
to  be,  for  we  know  that  our  work  in  the  Lord  is 
never  in  vain.  Riches  and  greatness  have  always 
been  poison  to  the  Church,  and  are  so  to-day.  The 
poor  preachers  have  always  been  the  best  preachers, 
and  the  poor  church  has  always  been  the  best  work- 
ing church  and  brought  home  the  richest  harvest  to 
the  Lord's  granary.  If  we  be  poor,  our  Lord  is  rich, 
and  it  is  His  will  that  His  gospel  shall  be  preached 
to  the  poor.  His  kingdom  come  and  His  will  be 
done  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven ! 


Prmcelon  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01144  8604 


Date  Due 

hACUf  TV 

_i       

■^ 

^ 

